DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.313/2017
Ms. Poonam Rani
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o RZ-B1, Jeevan Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110059
Also At:
F-46, Sector- 51,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
….Complainant
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through its Principal Officer
IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi- 110017
Also At:
IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 304,
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 04.09.2017
Date of Order : 24.03.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has prayed for the award for the compensation of an amount of Rs.3,73,831/- together the cost of notice of Rs.5500/-: a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony/damages/mental harassment; OP may be directed to pay parking charges to the TATA Service Station for the parking of the car in its premises alongwith the interest @18% p.a. from 15.06.2016 till payment and cost of litigation.
The facts leading to case are that the complainant got his car No. HP-148H-5395 insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as OP) vide policy No. 9693176 for the amount of Rs.3,73,831/- and further the OP had insured the personal accident of driver upto Rs.2,00,000/-. The validity/currency of said policy was w.e.f. 10.03.2016 to 10.03.2017. On 15.06.2016, the Complainant alongwith his family were heading towards NOIDA (UP) from their home town. Unfortunately, the car met with an accident at Manjhil Gaon-Khaga, Distt.- Fatehpur, UP. The claimant immediately informed the Police check post which was located at same gaon. The said vehicle was being driven by Amit Kumar Prajapati at the time accident. The police official inspected the vehicle and took the statement of the driver. Thereafter the Complainant and his family members were taken to hospital. After initial treatment, they were discharged and thereafter they reached their home. The car being in break down condition, was left at such place which remained under custody of police official mentioned above. The Complainant and other family members were taken to Allahabad for medical treatment.
After two days, the husband of the claimant got the car lifted from place of accident to the Authorised Service Station (TATA Motors) at Allahabad. The in-charge of service station also apprised him if the expenses estimated is more than 75% of the insured amount, then case shall be of total loss. The Complainant also informed the OP about the whole incident. The police also recorded statement on 15.06.2016. The Car was still parked at TATA Service Centre at Allahabad (UP). The Complainant provided all documents in respect of accident dated 15.06.2016.
The OP, on the receipts of documents, appointed a surveyor viz. Sh. Ashutosh Singh. Despite many call and visits to the office of OP, nothing was heard from the OP. After several months, the OP sent letter dated 25.04.2017 informing him about the rejection of his claim.
It was alleged that the rejection of claim amounts to harassment to the Complainant. The conduct of OP throughout tantamount to deficiency of service. The Complainant also sent legal notice dated 22.05.2017 but the OP failed to settle the case. The damaged car is still parked at TATA Motor’s authorised service station at Allahabad.
On the other hand, the OP took the preliminary objection stating that the claim was rejected for violation/breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. Thus repudiation cannot be termed as deficiency in service or negligence. It was averred by the OP that the surveyor so appointed to investigate the case, raised serious doubts about the incident as all the alleged damages to the subject vehicle were found old & fabricated, and not related to the alleged accident.
Regarding the importance of Surveyor Report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Venkateswara Syndicate V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [III (2009) CPJ 81 (SC)] that “Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/surveyors are appointed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”. The copy of survey report is annexed as Annexure –‘2’. The OP also raised the doubt about the loss suffered in the subject vehicle upto 75% of the IDV. Considering all the factors and medical treatment etc., the OP has not committed any deficiency in service with respect to the claim settlement.
It is also alleged by the OP that the accident is staged one which is further proved by the fact that the Complainant has procured a Bill for some Break-down Service for towing the subject vehicle for a sum of Rs.6500/. It was not found mentioned what was mode of transport for towing the subject vehicle. As per survey report under the Notes at Sr. No.8 “Repairer demanded only Rs.1500/- for towing charges but no information was given about the mode of transportation (By crane or other vehicle)”. Since, the cases where the vehicle has suffered extensive damages, the vehicle cannot be shifted without crane and hence, the charges should have been on higher side. It is alleged that the above alleged evidence by Complainant seems contradictory. No such evidence was adduced to support his contention by the Complainant. The contention of the Complainant regarding alleged parking charges remains unsubstantiated/uncorroborated in the absence of any documentary evidence and accordingly, the OP is not liable to pay these parking charges. It is also noted from the attached documents to the complaint that the statement of Sh. Amit Kumar Prajapati, the driver who was driving the said vehicle and the Complainant were got recorded by the Police but no counter signature of Police officer concerned was on these statement. Conclusively, no copy of the FIR was produced alongwith other documents attached with complaint. This raises reasonable doubts.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavits. Rejoinder is also on record so is the written statement. Arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material on record carefully. The OP has led the evidence successfully to discharge its onus and proved his case to the extent that the case of the Complainant seems to have been concocted/staged. It was further averred by the OP that the Complainant has failed to adduce any technical evidences to support his assertions made. Since the OP has placed much reliance on the said Survey-Report. The attention of the Commission was also drawn to the factual matrix of said report – conclusion of Surveyor mentioned at Sr. No.8 under the caption “NOTES” which is reproduced for appreciation of the facts:-
- Pieces of broken Back glass lying on parcel tray (as per cause of accident, the cehicle was overtuned,. Hence, most of the pieces of the glass should have been fallen out)
- Both Side Outer Mirror were found intact (as per cause of accident, vehicle overturned)
- Rusting marks is observed on Compressor pulley and no Belt was found. Hence, it appears that the same was not in working condition.
- I asked the repairer to produce the Job Card for the accidential vehicle. But the manager informed me that No Job Card was opened by them till date.
- Rusting was observed on most of the body parts. Although the vehicle met with an accident on 14.07.2016 at about 08:00 PM and surveyed on 16.07.2016 at 02.30 PM (i.e. less than 2 days from survey within 42 hrs.)
- No FIR was lodged by the insured till survey.
We were also taken though the above quoted judgement of Venkateshwara Syndicate v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2009) CPJ 8I SC of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the ratio decidendi of Apex Court, and contradiction on towing charges specifically as discussed above, in all, this Commission is of the conscious view that the Complainant could not prove its case having failed not to advance any technical evidences to counter the survey report.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, this Commission has arrived at that complaint is devoid of merits and accordingly, same is rejected. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
