Haryana

Karnal

CC/47/2021

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Smt. Shakuntla Dagar

14 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 47 of 2021

                                                          Date of instt.25.01.2021

                                                          Date of Decision 14.10.2021

 

Dinesh Kumar aged about 30 years son of Shri Fateh Chand, resident of village Gonder, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Iffco-Tokio General Insurance company Ltd. c/o Hafed District Office, SCO no.19-20, Part-1, Ground floor, Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager/Authorized person.

 

2.     Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

 

3.     Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Bhawan, plot no.2, Sector 28 A 3^rd floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002 through its Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

 Argued by:Smt. Shakuntla Dagar, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri Ashok Kumar Vohra, counsel for OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                         The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his motorcycle (Splendor Plus) bearing registration no.HR-05-AH-1397 with the OPs, vide policy no.25304893, valid from 03.02.2018 to 02.02.2019. The Insured Declare Value (IDV) of the vehicle is Rs.19,500/-. On 08.12.2018 at about 3.00 p.m. the complainant parked his motorcycle duly locked outside the office of Dharampal Arya, Advocate, situated at D.A.V. College Road, Karnal and went inside alongwith his father in the abovesaid office. When complainant and his father came out, they found their motorcycle was missing. The complainant searched his motorcycle but could not find it. Complainant immediately informed the police on 100 number regarding the theft of his motorcycle but police registered the FIR no.1022 dated 10.12.2018 under Section 379 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. Besides this, complainant also informed the OP in this regard immediately. The complainant got lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the necessary documents but OPs continued to demand the untrace report from the complainant, vide different letters alongwith original keys of motorcycle and last service record. Every time complainant replied to the said letters, through registered letters, intimating them regarding non-submitting of untrace report by the concerned police. Complainant wanted to submit the original key of the motorcycle and last service record but was waiting for the untrace report. However, lastly OPs repudiated the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 18.12.2019  on the false and flimsy grounds as “No claim”.  After receiving the said letter complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested that the police has not yet submitted the untrace report and his claim file be not closed but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Ultimately, the concerned police has submitted the untrace report in the court of learned C.J.M. Karnal on 12.01.2021. Complainant received the untraced report and after receiving the same complainant informed the OP and offered to submit the said untraced report and to release the claim amount but OPs flatly refused to entertain the said untrace report and also pay the claim to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant was not repudiated by the OPs but merely closed due to non-submission of requested documents by the complainant after repeated requests in this regard. OPs sent the letters dated 08.01.2019, 13.02.2019, 08.03.2019, 27.03.2019 and finally on 07.08.2019, vide which they demanded (i) original untraced report certified by SHO/Police Station (ii) both original keys of the stolen vehicle, (iii) Last service record for the vehicle. The untrace report and keys of the vehicle are very much essential for settlement of a motor theft claim by the Insurance Company, hence the claim was closed via closure letter dated 18.12.2019 due to non-submission of the documents after giving ample opportunities. The OPs’ company still ready to conclude the claim on submission of untraced report and both original keys of the vehicle by reserving its right to accept or reject the liability under the insurance policy as per insurance policy terms and conditions. It is further pleaded that the alleged theft took place on 08.12.2018 but FIR was lodged on 10.12.2018 with a delay of two days. On receipt of the intimation regarding the theft of motorcycle in question, OP appointed an investigator Shri R.N. Sharma, who submitted his detailed investigation report on 15.12.2018 to the office of OPs.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A,  court order dated 12.01.2021 regarding untraced report Ex.C1, untrace report Ex.C2, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C3, copy of driving licence of complainant Ex.C4, copy of R.C. Ex.C5, copy of insurance policy Ex.C6, copy of pollution certificate Ex.C7, copy of FIR Ex.C8, copy of letter dated 15.12.2018 from insurance company Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 07.08.2019 Ex.C10, reply dated 20.08.2019 with postal receipt dated 21.08.2019 Ex.C11 and Ex.C12, letter dated 27.03.2019 from insurance company Ex.C13, reply dated 04.04.2019 by complainant with postal receipt Ex.C14 and Ex.C15, tracking dated 20.12.2019 for letter Ex.C16, claim closure letter dated 18.12.2019 Ex.C17, reply dated 28.12.2019 with postal receipt Ex.C18 and Ex.C19, copy of driving licence of Fateh Chand father of complainant Ex.C20, last service record of the motorcycle in question dated 04.12.2018 Ex.C21 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Devendra Kumar Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of R.N. Sharma Investigator Ex.RW2/A, request letter dated 08.01.2019 Ex.R1, reminders dated 13.02.2019, 08.03.2019, 27.03.2019 Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, additional letter dated 07.08.2019 Ex.R5, closure letter dated 18.12.2019 Ex.R6, insurance policy Ex.R7, investigation report Ex.R8 and closed the evidence on 15.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen.  Information regarding theft of the vehicle was also given to OPs.  OPs appointed an investigator namely Shri R.N. Sharma for investigating the matter. The OPs demanded documents from complainant, complainant submitted all the required documents with the OPs. Thereafter, complainant request the OPs for releasing of his genuine claim regarding the vehicle in question but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint with compensation and litigation expenses etc.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that on receiving the intimation regarding the alleged incident, OPs appointed an investigator for investigating the matter. OPs sent letter and their reminders to the complainant requesting him to submit the documents i.e. (i) original untraced report certified by SHO/Police Station (ii) both original keys of the stolen vehicle and last service record for the vehicle. Hence, the claim of the complainant had been closed due to non-submission of the documents.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of insurance policy. Intimation was given to the OPs. On receiving the intimation, OPs investigated the matter.  The claim of the complainant has declared as ‘No Claim’, vide letter Ex.C17/Ex.R6 dated 18.12.2019 by the OPs, on the ground that complainant did not submitted the documents i.e. original untrace report (ii) both original keys of the stolen vehicle, (iii) Last service record for the vehicle.

10.           On 03.08.2021 learned counsel for OPs suffered a separate statement to the effect that OPs are ready to approve the claim to the tune of Rs.19,400/- being full and final settlement with the following conditions of completing documents:-

1. Registration Certificate Block/ Freeze in the regard of RTA concerned.

2.  Letter of Subrogation.

3.  Indemnity Bond.

4. RTO form no.29 and 30.

5. Original Registration Certificate of stolen vehicle.

 

He further stated that he has already received keys of the vehicle in question alongwith untrace report and the same has been sent to the company.

11.           A perusal of claim closure letter Ex.C17/Ex.R6 dated 18.12.2019  the claim of the complainant has declared as ‘No Claim’ on the ground that complainant did not submit the documents i.e. original untrace report certified by SHO/Police Station (ii) both original keys of the stolen vehicle, (iii) Last service record for the vehicle.  Untrace report and the keys were already handed over by the complainant to the OPs and in this regard learned counsel for OPs suffered a separate statement dated 03.08.2021. OPs have also demanded last service record for the vehicle in question. Complainant has placed on record copy of last service record of the motorcycle in question dated 04.12.2018 as Ex.C21. When the complainant has placed on file last service record before this Commission then why he has not given the same to the OPs. Hence, this plea taken by the OPs is having no force. Moreover, in the letters Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 OPs demanded only three documents i.e. original untrace report (ii) both original keys of the stolen vehicle, (iii) Last service record for the vehicle but in the statement suffered by the learned counsel for the OPs dated 03.08.2021 they have demanded five documents. Meaning, thereby, OPs did not stand on his own legs and intentionally harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other.

12.           Keeping in view the above discussion and facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the act of OPs while closing the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine.

13.           As per insurance policy Ex.C6 (Ex.R7), the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.19,500/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith compensation and litigation expenses etc.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.19,500/- insured declared value (IDV)  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation/closing of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and  towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to get all the formalities completed with regard to transfer of vehicle in the name of OPs as and when the OPs desire. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.10.2021.

 

                                                                       

                                                                President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

                        (Vineet Kaushik)               

                           Member