Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/71

Bharat Bhushan - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :              71 of 2018

Date of Institution:   26.04.2018

Date of Decision :      9.04.2019

 

Bharat Bhushan aged about 37 years son of Bhagwant Sarup resident of Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot. Prop. Singhal Construction Co. Railway Road, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                                                    ...Complainant

Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Krishan Kumar Gupta son of Genda Lal, resident of Basal Street, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

                                                                                                            .......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.19,600/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for

cc no.-71 of 2018

further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the proprietor of Singhal Construction Co and he is running this Firm for the purpose of earning his livelihood. It is submitted that complainant owned the vehicle Activa bearing no.PB-04M-6745 and it was registered in the name of firm and was duly insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy No.FLOY3GT dated 9.06.2017 effective from 10.06.2017 to 9.06.2018 for Rs.19,600/-. It is further submitted on the intervening night of 3.07.2017 and 4.07.2017 Activa of complainant was stolen and he immediately gave information to SHO, Police Station, Kotkapura on 4.07.2017 and also informed OPs regarding this incident. Thereafter, complainant completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents with OPs for obtaining the insurance claim on account of theft of his insured vehicle, but vide letter dated 27.02.2018, OPs repudiated his claim on vague grounds. Complainant made many requests to OPs to process his insurance claim but to no effect. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.19,600/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

cc no.-71 of 2018

4                                       On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has levelled false allegations in this complaint and complaint is false, frivolous and vague. It is averred that vehicle was in the name of firm. It is averred that complainant did not inform the Police immediately as vehicle was stolen on 3/04.07.2017, but complainant got recorded DDR to this effect on 13.09.2017 that after 71 days of delay. Complainant has violated the mandatory condition of the policy in question and therefore, his claim has rightly been repudiated by answering OPs. It is further averred that complainant has lodged false claim. At the time of purchase of policy i.e on 10.06.2017, IDV of vehicle was Rs.19,600/- and it was manufactured in 2009. As per Report given by Surveyor Vikas Gulati, who recorded the statement of complainant wherein complainant has specifically mentioned that vehicle was parked in gallery and he went upstairs and thereafter, he came downstairs in the morning at about 7.00 am. It is averred that this is gross negligence on the part of complainant. complainant also stated that RC of the vehicle remains in vehicle and has not stated that before parking the vehicle in the evening, he took away the RC from it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too are refuted being wrong and incorrect.

5                          On receipt of notice, OP-2 appeared in the Forum only on  first hearing but neither filed reply nor came thereafter. Despite having have sufficient knowledge about complaint, OP-2 did not come present in the Forum on several hearings to contest the complaint and therefore, vide order dated 24.07.2018, it was proceeded against exparte.

 

cc no.-71 of 2018

Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case.  Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan, General Manager Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/2 to 9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                       We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the record placed on file.

8                                                     Ld Counsel for complainant has vehementally argued that vehicle of complainant was insured with OPs against policy in question valid from 10.06.2017 to 9.06.2018 and during the subsistence of insurance period, insured vehicle of complainant was stolen by someone  on intervening date of 3 and 4 of July 2017. Complainant duly got recorded report regarding theft of his vehicle in Police Station, Kotkapura and Police registered FIR regarding this on 7.09.2017. Intimation regarding this incident was also given to OPs immediately and thereafter complainant lodged claim with OPs and completed all the formalities and also submitted requisite documents to OPs.  Complainant requested them to make payment of insurance claim on account of theft of his vehicle, but all in vain. Despite repeated requests to Ops to process the claim, Ops did not paid any compensation on account of insurance claim for theft of vehicle. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

 

cc no.-71 of 2018

9                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for Op-1 asserted before the Forum that complainant has violated the mandatory condition of terms of insurance policy. Theft of his vehicle occurred on 3^rd and 4^th of July, 2017, but he did not inform the Police immediately regarding this incident and got recorded DDR to this effect on 13.09.2017 after about 71 days of delay. Moreover, notice in writing was required to be given to company  as well as Police immediately and he was to cooperate with the Company in securing conviction of the offender. As per OP-1 there is negligence on the part of complainant in parking the vehicle in his gallery and even he was not sure if he had taken away RC from the activa or not. They have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations levelled by complainant have also been denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                               From the careful perusal of record and going through the evidence and documents placed on file, it is observed that case of the complainant is that his insured vehicle was stolen by someone during the validity of insurance period. He duly intimated Ops and also got recorded FIR to this effect and thereafter, complainant submitted all the documents as per instructions of Ops to them to obtain insurance claim for the loss on account of theft, but Ops did not make payment of insurance claim on false allegations. In reply, OP-1 stress mainly on the point that incident of theft occurred on 3^rd and 4^th of  July, 2017 but complainant caused delay of 71 days in giving information to Police and did not give immediate intimation to Police. It is made out that there is no dispute between complainant and Opposite parties regarding purchase or insurance policy for vehicle in question. It is also not disputed that vehicle was not stolen.

 

cc no.-71 of 2018

The only objection raised by OPs in repudiating the claim of complainant on account of theft of his insured vehicle is that complainant did not give information to Police regarding theft incident of his vehicle immediately and intentionally caused delay of about 71 days. However, from the perusal of record it is observed that plea taken OPs for not passing the claim of complainant on the ground that he got recorded FIR in respect of theft of his vehicle after delay of 71 days, has no legs to stand upon in the light of document Ex C-6 which is a letter written by complainant to SHO, Police Station, Kotkapura. Through this letter complainant has reported his grievance to Police. Ex C-2 is copy of insurance policy issued by Ops to complainant that clears the pleadings of complainant that his vehicle was insured with Ops for the period from 10.06.2017 to 9.06.2018 for sum of Rs.19,600/-.Ex C-4 is copy of FIR recorded by Police in respect of theft of insured vehicle of complainant and Ex  C-5 is copy of General Diary Details wherein at serial no.6 concerned official of Police has clearly stated that vehicle of complainant bearing no.PB-04M-6745 was stolen by someone on 3 / 4 of July, 2017. Thus, contention of OPs that complainant did not intimate the Police in time  has no relevance. There is no doubt that Police Department takes time in making search and to verify the contents made in any complaint and after lodging complaint by complainant regarding theft of his vehicle, there might have been spent time in search and tracing the vehicle and after finding the complaint of complainant being authentic, they got registered FIR on 13.09.2017. Moreover, there is no dispute that complainant informed Ops regarding this incident on same day and they immediately appointed an Investigator. If complainant can inform the OPs regarding theft incident on same day, then, there is no reason that complainant did not inform the local Police. Act of OPs in repudiating the claim of complainant is wrong and does not seem appropriate. It is clear cut deficiency in

cc no.-71 of 2018

service on the part of Ops for insisting on those formalities, to which complainant has no role to play. The only liability of complainant was to inform the Police and to give due intimation to OPs in time. Complainant also completed all formalities and submitted documents required by OPs, but OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant.

11                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant immediately gave intimation regarding the incident to Ops and submitted all the required documents to Ops within time and no such document or formality is remaining. The Ops intentionally delayed the payment of claim to complainant and got monitory benefit by retaining the amount of claim. As per guidelines of IRDA, the Insurance Companies have to decide the every claim within a period of three months from the date of its intimation and they cannot take more than six months even in special circumstances and in present case, the Ops have not settled the claim of complainant even after passing of about 3½ years and complainant is also entitled for interest and compensation alongwith insurance value of the vehicle from the date of intimation till the date of final realization. Ld Counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of citation in cc no.86 of 2015, titled as Phoenix Comtrade Pvt Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14-Insurance Claim-Interest-Delay in payment of insurance claim-Held-Since the insurer has utilized the aforesaid amount, the complainant is also entitled to an appropriate interest on that amount-As per the guidelines issued by IRDA, the maximum period of six months from the date of the lodgement of complaint is available to the insurer for payment of the claim. He has further placed reliance on citation in First Appeal No.215 of 2015

cc no.-71 of 2018

with First Appeal No. 230 of 2015 dated 30.09.2015 in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jaswant Rai Verma with Jaswant Rai Verma Vs United India Insurance Company Limited, wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T, Chandigarh observed that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2 (1) (g) Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002-Insurance Claim-theft of vehicle-Investigator appointed by Insurance Company – Untraced report not filed by Police – State Commission held that as per Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002, in special circumstances of the case, the Surveyor could take six months for submission of his report, from the date of his appointment – Even on receipt of untraced report on 11.12.2014 opposite party did not decide the claim – this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by OP – The District Forum, erred in awarding interest @ 12% per anum on the IDV of the vehicle from the date of lodging the claim – It should have awarded after six months from the date of lodging the claim by the complainant – thus impugned order needs modification.

12                                  From the above discussion and keeping in view the case law produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.19,600/- IDV of vehicle on account of insurance claim of complainant within 30 days of transfer of RC in the name of OPs and other relevant documents from complainant, failing which complainant shall be further entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from 26.04.2018 i.e from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Ops are further directed to give Rs.3000/-as consolidated compensation to complainant for

cc no.-71 of 2018

unnecessary harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Complainant shall transfer the certificate of registration in the name of Ops and shall also furnish other required papers. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 9.04.2019         

(Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                             Member                          President