Delhi

North East

CC/5/2021

MADAN JAISWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S B PANDEY ADVOCATE

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 05/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Madan Jaiswal S/o Lt.  Sh. Shyam Sunder Jaiswal R/o H.No. B/167, FF, St. No.9, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Director/authorized signatory Reg. Office:- IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017     Rajiv Raj Bajaj(Service Centre) Through its prop. At: Plot No. 193, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110002	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

09.01.21 01.03.23 06.06.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is Complainant purchased policy for his vehicle bearing no.  DL 3SCH-8603 from Opposite Party No.1 on 05.02.20 for the period 08.02.20 to 07.02.21 by paying premium of Rs. 2,418.73/- from his debit card. On 14.09.20 the vehicle in question got stolen from the parking of his house and the Complainant lodged FIR bearing no. 023099/2020 u/s 379/411 IPC. The Complainant stated that the said stolen vehicle was recovered by police and brought to the police station and thereafter taken to the Complainant’s house. A police report was prepared after the recovery and as per that report, battery of the bike was not found and all the body parts of bike were in damaged condition and the said vehicle has been brought in damaged condition. It is further stated that the vehicle in question was taken to Opposite Party No.2 service centre on 18.11.20. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 sent reminder letter to Complainant asking reason for delay of 8 days in claim intimation and the recovery report mentioning the missing parts from police. On 22.12.20 the Complainant replied to queries of Opposite Party No.1 and despite passing 20 days repairing/replacement work was not started. The Complainant stated that Opposite Parties are delaying the repair/replacement the damaged/missing parts of the said vehicle. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the financial loss caused to him by not repairing/replacement of the bike. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement.  The Opposite Party No.1 while admitting the policy stated that the claim of the Complainant has not been repudiated but closed as the Complainant had failed to submit requisite documents in spite of repeated reminders. It has been submitted that the Complainant had supplied the handwritten list of allegedly missing and damaged parts which is contradiction of police recovery report. It has been contended that the Complainant clearly refused to provide the recovery report mentioning the missing parts to Opposite Party No.1 which is violation of policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the surveyor appointed by them had assessed the loss and net payable amount is Rs.6,440/- and the Opposite Party is ready to process the claim as per the survey report as soon as the Complainant completes the documentary formalities as required by the Opposite Party. It is also contended that liability of the answering Opposite Party cannot be beyond the Insured declared value of the subject vehicle which is 10,000/-. In view of above, the Opposite Party No.1 prays that in absence of deficiency on their part in providing services, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement.  The Opposite Party No.2 while admitting that vehicle was taken to their service centre, stated that the present complaint is false and baseless as the delay in repairs was not caused by them. It has been submitted that before taking repair/replacement of the vehicle, the insurance company has to clear the claim of vehicle. Hence, the Opposite Party No.2 has not been deficient in providing services to the Complainant.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Alok Gupta, General Manager Claims for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Tyagi, Owner of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.
7.  It is noted that on 24.03.2022, Opposite Party No.2 had also moved an application stating that they were closing their shop w.e.f 31.03.2022 and prayed that Complainant be directed to remove the vehicle after paying the applicable charges. Complainant filed his reply to the above application stating that the Opposite Party No.2 had not put any such condition regarding parking charges at the time of taking the vehicle for repairs, hence, they are not liable to pay those charges. The perusal of the Complainant’s written arguments shows that the Bike was returned to the Complainant without repairs.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the counsel for the Complainant, the Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Authorized representative (Workshop Manager) for Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that vehicle in question, duly insured with the Opposite Party No.1 was stolen and an FIR was also lodged to that effect. Later, the said stolen vehicle was recovered by police and police report was prepared after the recovery and as per that report, battery of the bike was not found and all the body parts of bike were in damaged condition. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was taken to Opposite Party No.2 service centre for repairs. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are delaying the repair/replacement the damaged/missing parts of the said vehicle and in spite of repeated requests, said vehicle has not been repaired which has caused him inconvenience and harassment.
9. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre is that they are not deficient in providing services as the repairs could not be done because the claim was not cleared by the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Insurance company. While the case of Opposite Party No.1 is that they closed the Complainant’s claim as the Complainant had failed to submit requisite documents in spite of repeated reminders. It is contended that the Complainant had supplied the handwritten list of allegedly missing and damaged parts which is contradiction of police recovery report. It has been alleged that the Complainant clearly refused to provide the recovery report mentioning the missing parts to Opposite Party No.1 which is violation of policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the surveyor appointed by them had assessed the loss and net payable amount is Rs.6,440/- and the Opposite Party is ready to process the claim as per the survey report as soon as the Complainant completes the documentary formalities as required by the Opposite Party. It is also contended that liability of the answering Opposite Party cannot be beyond the Insured declared value of the subject vehicle which is 10,000/-.
10. The perusal of the file shows that the bike insured with the Opposite Party No.1 got stolen and later on recovered by the police in damaged condition as is proved by the Police recovery report.  The surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party No.1 insurance company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,440/- while the Complainant had submitted the repair estimate made by the service centre to the tune of Rs.32,000/-. The Opposite Party No.1 had stated in its reply that they are ready to pay the claim as per the survey report upon Complainant’s providing requisite documents.
11. However, the insurance company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 had made a statement in their reply that liability of the answering Opposite Party cannot be beyond the Insured declared value of the subject vehicle which is 10,000/-. The Complainant in reply to the said statement, denied that the liability of the company cannot be more than the IDV which is Rs.10,000/- which shows that the Complainant has also accepted that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.10,000/-. The perusal of the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle shows that the Bike is    Bajaj KTM200 of 2014 make.  
12. It is clear from the above discussion that the Opposite Party No.1 company closed the claim on the ground that recovery report mentioning the missing parts has not been provided by the Complainant while Opposite Party No.1 admittedly had the recovery report prepared by the police and the perusal of said report shows that the bike was in damaged condition and all the body parts were damaged and battery was also missing.  In spite of the police report, Opposite Party No.1 kept on asking for another report mentioning the damaged parts and closed the claim of the Complainant which shows the unfair conduct of Opposite Party No.1.
13. Therefore, in view of above, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party No.1 is liable for deficiency in providing services to the Complainant. However, their liability cannot be fixed beyond the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10,000/-
14. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.6,440/- (Rs. Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty only), along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 7,000/- as litigation cost along with 6 % interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
15. Order announced on 06.06.2023

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President