Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/237/2022

NISHA JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

RBT/Complaint Case No. 237/22

 

In the matter of:

 

		Nisha Jain W/o Rajesh Kumar Jain, Flat No. A-44, Ahinsa Vihar, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi 85		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.   3.	IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., FF-23-24, Pearl Oxame, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi   Hemant Singh Bhandari (Surveyor)   Vikas Mahendru,   Sr. No. 2 and Sr. No. 3 at:- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No. Anb 04, 3rd Floor, TDI Centre, Jasola Vihar, Delhi 110025		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		27.11.2018 01.02.2024 08.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 16.05.2018, the Complainant had taken an insurance policy of Opposite Party for her car bearing no. DL 8C AW 3223 (Maruti Swift Desire) for a sum of Rs. 13,791/-. Complainant stated that on 12.09.2018, her car met with an accident in Bawana area at 10:30 p.m. Complainant stated that on 20.09.2018 she deposited her car to Krish Body workshop at Jahagirpuri for repairing the said car under insurance claim. Complainant stated that executive of Krish body Workshop intimated the claim to Opposite Party. On 27.09.2018, she filed the claim of her car and she wrongly mentioned the date of accident as 22.09.2018, however, the actual date of the accident was 12.09.2018. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 inspected the vehicle of the Complainant on the next day at Krish Body workshop and took photographs but did not give any instruction to repair the vehicle. Complainant stated that she contacted the executive manager of the workshop to start the work of repair but he replied that approval had not been given by the Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that again on 05.10.2018 she contacted Opposite Party No. 2 and he talked very rudely and asked about the cause of the accident and told that he again inspected the vehicle. She contacted Opposite Party No. 3 and asked him to permit approval under insurance claim to start repair work of the vehicle. Complainant stated that on 06.10.2018, she received an email from Opposite Party No. 2 along with attachment of 3 nos. photographs of her vehicle which were received from old insurance company i.e. Tata Insurance and in that mail it is stated that cause of accident narrated by the insured in claim form was not correlating with damages are old in nature due to that recommending this claim for repudiated. Complainant stated there was no relation of old photograph which were sent with mail and present damages condition of the car. Complainant stated that she sent various emails for demanding the joint inspection of vehicle with surveyor and senior executive but they did not give any reply. Complainant stated she also sent a complaint to IRDA but not fruitful action was received. Complainant stated she also received an email from grievance customer call centre of Opposite Party with remarks that who will reviewed the captioned claim with concerned technical/claim officer, who did not find any deviation in assessment as there is mis-representation of facts and do not correlated with cause of accident mentioned in claim form, hence the same is rejected by the surveyor. Complainant also received a letter from the Opposite Party in which the case is closed as No Claim. Complainant stated she repaired her vehicle privately after previous claim from old insurance company. Complainant has prayed to instruct the Opposite Parties to get her car repaired and pay Rs. 38,250/- as repaired charges. Complainant also prayed for an amount of   Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed common written statement. It is admitted that car of the Complainant was insured by it for a period from 18.05.2018 to 17.05.2019. It is stated as per the surveyor report, the accident took place on 22.09.2018, opposite near Bawana Canal, Delhi and the Complainant deposited her vehicle with Krish Body Workshop Jahagirpuri on 20.09.2018. It is stated that intimation of the claim was given to it by some employee of the workshop and told that accident took place on 22.09.2018. It is stated that in the claim form the date of accident is mentioned as 22.09.2018. It is stated that the damages reported and noticed are multiple and do not correlate with the cause of accident. It is stated that the damages on the vehicle were already present in the previous claim with the previous insurance i.e. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. The Opposite Parties has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partiesand has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Parties have filed common affidavit of    Shri Neeraj Verma, General Manager, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the AR for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that her car met with an accident on 12.09.2018 and it is her case that due to mistake the date in the claim form has been mentioned as 22.09.2018. Her case is that the car met with an accident in Bawana area at 10:30 p.m. as some commercial vehicle was coming from wrong side. Her case is that she deposited her car for repair with Krish Body workshop on 20.09.2018 and claim was lodged with the Opposite Party on 27.09.2018. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that the accident as alleged by the Complainant is doubtful for the reason that two different dates have been mentioned regarding the date of accident. It is also the case of the Opposite Parties that the damages to the car do not correlate with the mode of accident. It is also their case that the said damages were already bear in the previous insurance policy which was given by Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
7. As per the version of the Complainant, the accident took place on 12.09.2018 at 10.30 p.m. in the Bawana area. The Complainant has simply mentioned that the accident took place in the Bawana area and she did not specifically mentioned the place of accident despite the fact that Bawana itself is a very large area. She did not take the photographs of the car at the spot nor the place of accident was photographed. Further she has deposited her car with Krish Body workshop on 20.09.2018 i.e. after 08 days of the accident. No explanation has been given as to why there was delay of 08 days in depositing the vehicle with the workshop. She did not specify as to where the vehicle was lying during this period of 08 days. She has not stated anywhere that how the vehicle was taken to the workshop nor she has stated anywhere that after the accident the vehicle was roadworthy. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the damages do not correlate with the mode of accident and the damages on the car were already in existence prior to the accident. The Complainant has not given any explanation nor have rebutted the same by leading any cogent evidence. The Complainant has not given any explanation as to why the accident was reported to the insurance company after delay of 17 days.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 08.04.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President