Haryana

Karnal

CC/44/2019

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Swaran Singh

23 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 44 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.28.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 23.10.2019

 

Amandeep Singh, aged 30 years son of Shri Bhagwant Singh resident of House no.511 New Prem Nagar, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager Hafed Building, Sector-12, Karnal.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Swaran Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Ashok Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of Car bearing registration no.HR-06/AA-1770, (Model 2012). The same was insured with OP, vide policy no.26040352, valid from 30.11.2017 to 29.11.2018. The IDV of the car is Rs.4,21,800/-. On 15.08.2018 the said car met with an accident within the area of village Raipur Rodan Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal and got damaged extensively, the matter was reported to the Police of P.S.Butana (Karnal) and in this regard an FIR no.376 dated 16.08.2018 under section 279, 337 was lodged. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the OP and car was taken on superdari from the Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal and the car was shifted/taken to workshop at M/s Shivalik Motors, Kurukshetra, authorized dealer of the company with the help of crane. The surveyor was appointed by the OP, who conducted the survey of the car in question and submitted his report to the OP in this regard and he assured the complainant that the car be got repaired from the company and the claim of the car in question will be settled as early as possible. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on repair etc. beside a sum of Rs.25,000/- were spent on crane and other misc. expenses. The necessary documents were submitted in the office of OP by the complainant regarding the own damage claim of the aforesaid car. The complainant visited the office of OP several times for its claim, but no response was given in this regard. Ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 27.10.2018 from the OP in which they repudiated the claim of the car in question of the complainant on false and frivolous ground without giving any opportunity to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it is pleaded that on receipt of the intimation of loss the claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the complainant was driving his insured car bearing registration no.HR-06-AA-1770 and he caused the accident on 15.08.2018 by hitting a three wheeler from rear side as a consequent thereof the driver of the Auto and its passenger received injuries as per details furnished in the FIR lodged on 16.08.2018 by the Butana Police, vide FIR no.376 under section 279/337 IPC. Further, as per the content of FIR in question, the driver of the insured vehicle was under the influence of Alcohol at the time of accident. It is submitted that provided in the claim form, the insured Mr.Amandeep Singh son of Shri Bhagwant Singh was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. Thus under the preview of the Motor Policy Section-1 (C),

“The company shall not be liable to made any payment in respect of any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.”

The complainant has also violated condition no.8 of the policy which is reproduced as under:

“The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsement of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.”

 

The claim of the complainant is repudiated vide speaking registered/AD letter dated 27.10.2018 under the law and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not intimated the OP regarding the accident of car on 15.08.2018. The complainant has informed the OP on 12.09.2018 just after lapse of 26 days by violation of condition no.1 of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 20.05.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta Ex.OW1/A, affidavit of Bharat c/o Dynamic Associates Ex.OW2/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O14 and closed the evidence on 14.10.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is registered owner of Car bearing registration no.HR-06/AA-1770, (Model 2012). The same was insured with OP, vide policy no.26040352, valid from 30.11.2017 to 29.11.2018. The IDV of the car is Rs.4,21,800/-. On 15.08.2018 the said car met with an accident within the area of village Raipur Rodan Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal and got damaged extensively, the matter was reported to the Police of P.S.Butana (Karnal) and in this regard an FIR no.376 dated 16.08.2018 under section 279, 337 was lodged. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the OP and car was taken on superdari from the Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal and the car was shifted/taken to workshop at M/s Shivalik Motors, Kurukshetra, authorized dealer of the company with the help of crane. The surveyor was appointed by the OP, who conducted the survey of the car in question and submitted his report to the OP in this regard and he assured the complainant that the car be got repaired from the company and the claim of the car in question will be settled as early as possible. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on repair etc. beside a sum of Rs.25,000/- were spent on crane and other misc. expenses. The necessary documents were submitted in the office of OP by the complainant regarding the own damage claim of the aforesaid car. The complainant visited the office of OP several times for its claim, but no response was given in this regard. Ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 27.10.2018 from the OP in which they repudiated the claim of the car in question of the complainant on false and frivolous ground.

7.             The case of the OP, is that on receipt of the intimation of loss the claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the complainant was driving his insured car bearing registration no.HR-06-AA-1770 and he caused the accident on 15.08.2018. An FIR lodged on 16.08.2018 by the Butana Police, vide FIR no.376 under section 279/337 IPC. Further, as per the content of FIR in question, the driver of the insured vehicle was under the influence of Alcohol at the time of accident. The claim of the complainant is repudiated vide speaking registered/AD letter dated 27.10.2018 under the law and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant has not intimated the OP regarding the accident of car on 15.08.2018. The complainant has informed the OP on 12.09.2018 just after lapse of 26 days and violation of condition no.1 of the insurance policy.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy with regard to accident. An FIR Ex.C3 was got lodged by one Vicky in Police Station Butana, Karnal against the complainant. Intimation with regard to the loss of vehicle was given to the OP. The claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered by the OP and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the complainant was driving his insured car and at that time the complainant was under the influence of Alcohol.

9.             The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide repudiation letter Ex.C4 by the OP, on the ground that as per version of the FIR Ex.C3/R4 lodged on the statement of Vicky son of Nand Lal against the driver (complainant) of the car bearing registration no.HR-06-AA-1770 make Maruti Swift (vehicle in question was under the influence of Alchol.

10.            The driver of the vehicle in question, did not medically examine by any doctor. There is no proof on the file, that at the time of accident, the complainant was under the influence of Alcohol. The version of the FIR is not sufficient to prove the case of the OP. Neither medical record nor any blood/urine report produced by the OP to prove his version. Thus, without any medical record, it cannot be held that the complainant was under the influence of Alcohol at the time of accident. In view of the above observation, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

11.            The vehicle in question was got repaired by the complainant from Shivalik Motors, authorized dealer of valvoline Cummins Ltd. & Elofic Filters, Kurukshetra and as per credit invoice and receipt voucher Ex.C5, the said authorized dealer had charged Rs.,93,793/- from the complainant. This fact has not denied by the OP. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated only on the version mentioned in FIR. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the expenses occurred by him for repair of his vehicle.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.93,797/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.27.10.2018 till its realization.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.10.2019

                                                                    President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                        Member