Haryana

Sonipat

251/2014

KAILASH S/O CHAND SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK JAIN

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.251 of 2014.

                                Instituted on:22.9.2014.

                                Date of order:06.08.2015

 

Kailash son of Chand Singh, r/o H.No.887, VPO Gandhra, distt. Rontak.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Iffco Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre  Saket, New Delhi.

                                            ...Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Shri Deepak Jain Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Joginder Kuhar Adv. for respondent.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

     SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Tata 2515 bearing no.HR63A/5026 which was insured with the respondent for the period 17.12.2012 to 16.12.2013 and the said vehicle was got financed by Indus Ind Bank Rohtak.  The complainant has already cleared all the financed amount and at present no finance amount is due towards the complainant. Unfortunately on 30.9.2013, the said truck was stolen and could not be traced and FIR no.304 dated 1.10.2013 was lodged with PS Kharkhoda.  The complainant completed all the required formalities and submitted all the required documents.  But to the utter surprise of the complainant,  the respondent vide letter dated 9.4.2014 informed that the vehicle was left unlocked and the same got stolen while its ignition key was left in the vehicle.  Thus, there is violation of condition no.5 of the policy and so they are filing the paper as no claim.  The complainant has alleged this action of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the action taken by the respondent insurance company for filing the claim of the complainant as NO Claim is perfectly legal because the complainant left his vehicle unlocked and its ignition key was left in the vehicle and cabin doors were unlocked and the same is a gross negligent and the complainant is failure to take reasonable care to prevent and protect the vehicle from loss.  The complainant has violated the terms and condition no.5 of the policy and thus, the repudiation of the claim is justified.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of  ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the action taken by the respondent insurance company for filing the claim of the complainant as NO Claim is perfectly legal because the complainant left his vehicle unlocked and its ignition key was left in the vehicle and cabin doors were unlocked and the same is a gross negligent and the complainant is failure to take reasonable care to prevent and protect the vehicle from loss.  The complainant has violated the terms and condition no.5 of the policy and thus, the repudiation of the claim is justified.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent.  There is no fundamental breach of the policy conditions as held in First appeal no.1015 of 2014 decided on 18.11.2014 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devinder.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as 2014(CJ 9(NC) Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.  and 2011(II) CPJ page 252 titled as Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Amit.

          In view of the aforesaid law which are applicable to the facts and  circumstances of the case, it is observed that repudiation of the claim by the respondent is wrong an illegal and the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of the vehicle.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.12,00,000/- at the time of theft.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.12 Lacs (Rs.twelve lacs) within a period of one month failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of this order till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to get transfer the RC of the vehicle in the name of the respondent insurance company.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:06.08.2015