Punjab

Sangrur

CC/208/2018

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Udit Goyal

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  208

                                                Instituted on:    30.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       21.01.2019

 

Jatinder Singh aged about 41 years son of Sh. Saroop Singh, resident of H.No.222, Village Rampur Gujran, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No.2-B&C, 4^th Floor, IFFCO Complex, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

2.     IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office: Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                Mrs.Manisha, Member.

 

               

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

 

1.             Shri Jatinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his swift car bearing registration number PB-13-AJ-3006 from the Ops vide policy number 88459122 which was valid for the period from 15.1.2014 to 14.1.2015 for Rs.6,54,212/-.  Further case of the complainant is that on the intervening night of 18/19-10-2014, when Kulwinder Singh along with his wife Jyoti were returning to their village from Patran in swift car and when the car reached near electricity grid, Moonak, then a truck trolla bearing number RJ-06-GB-3070, which was standing on the road without any parking lights or indicator and the driver could not see the vehicle, and due to darkness, the car of the complainant struck into the backside of the truck trolla bearing number RJ-06-GB-3070, as a result of which Kulwinder Singh and his wife badly crushed in between the car and truck and died on the spot and the car in question damaged badly.  FIR number 138 dated 19.10.2014  was got recorded in P S Moonak against the driver of the truck.  Thereafter the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the vehicle was brought to Hira Automobiles Patiala by toeing the same and an estimate of loss to the tune of Rs.6,32,688/- was prepared. The complainant also paid Rs.35,000/- to the repairer for getting the estimate of loss. The complainant supplied all the documents to the OPs, but the claim was not settled lastly, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.10.2015 on the ground that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and there was a delay of 94 days in lodging the claim.  It is stated that the complainant filed an application before the Legal Services Authority Sangrur on 2.5.2017, which was later on withdrawn on 27.3.2018. 

2.             Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.6,54,212/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident  till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs.  It is stated further that the complainant gave intimation of accident dated 19.10.2014 on 21.1.2015 after about 94 days to the OPs regarding the accident and the OPs immediately appointed Er. S.P.J. Singh to asses the loss.  The surveyor submitted his report and assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,85,000/- less Rs.1000/- as excess clause.  It is stated further that the complainant submitted driving license number 44714/TV/5/2010 to the OP belonging to Kulwinder Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but the said license was not found as valid one, as such the claim of the complainant was legally repudiated vide letter dated 19.10.2015. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/2 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is admitted fact that the Ops issued a policy in favour of the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-AJ-3006 w.e.f. 15.1.2014 to 14.1.2015, declaring IDV Rs.6,54,212/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant gave intimation of accident to the Ops on 21.01.2015 and the OPs appointed independent surveyor and the loss assessor for making assessment of loss and the surveyor submitted his report on 8.8.2015 to the OPs and assessed the total loss liability amounting to Rs.4,84,000/- on net of salvage basis.

 

7.             F.I.R. of the accident was written on 19.10.2014 in the Moonak police station.  The Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on 19.10.2015 on the ground that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and there is a delay of 94 days in lodging the claim regarding delay in informing the complainant about the accident.  We have gone through the motor final survey report submitted by Mr. S.P.J. Singh from Patiala in which he has mentioned that the insured told him that in the accident his nephew Kulwinder and Jyoti, the wife of Kulwinder Singh got expired.  They were busy in the routine rituals, so could not intimate the insurance company.  However, FIR was registered.

 

8.             The next issue regarding the repudiation of the claim on the pretext that the driver was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident.  We have gone through the documents submitted by both the parties and have observed that the OPs merely repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of a document (Annexure-I, particular of the driving license) with the remarks that the record does not exist.  In this context, insurance company did not bother to examine a witness from the Licensing Authority along with the relevant record to prove that no such record is available with the authority.  In this way, the insured has been rested of  his right to examine the witness on relevant aspects to have the true picture.  Even the surveyor has not clearly stated the status of the driving license.  He has simply written in his report that the driving license verification is still awaited.  As such, the survey report does not show that the driving license was fake at the time of the occurrence of the accident.  We are, therefore, of the view that it could not be found as a fact that the driver of the car was not holding a valid license at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted FAO  No.7343 of 2017 (O&M) titled as IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Indrawati and others, decided on 30.7.2018, FAO No.8347 of 2017(O&M) titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited versus Amarjit Singh and others, decided on 25.5.2018 and FAO No.5427 of 2017 (O&M) titled as The Matan Shiv Shakti Co.op. Tpt. Society Limited and another versus Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., decided on 11.09.2018 of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the ratio of the cases is straight away applicable to the present case.  

 

9.             In sequel of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the direction to the OPs to pay the complainant on the non standard basis at 75% of the claim made by the complainant i.e. Rs.6,54,212/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim dated 19.10.2015 till payment.  Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- are allowed in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.  Payment of awarded amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.  

                        Pronounced.

                        January 21, 2019.

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member