Haryana

Karnal

CC/228/2018

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.P. Arora

06 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 228 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.07.09.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 06.01.2020.

 

Krishan Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal resident of 137, ward no.13, Ram Nagar, Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,plot no.2, B & C, Sector-28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002, through its authorized Shitij Bhutani, Head of Claim Department.

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. branch office at Hafed District office, SCO no.19-20, Part-1, Ground floor, Karnal, Haryana-132001, through its branch manager.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member   

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Akshat Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for opposite parties.

                 

                   (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 has purchased a car (Skoda Laura) having registration no.HR-06AF-7317 in the year 2011 and the same was insured with the OPs. The OPs assessed the total value of the said vehicle for Rs.8,65,000/- at the time of getting the premium for insurance, which was valid from 03.08.2016 to 02.08.2017. On 25.07.2017 the abovesaid vehicle met with an accident near village Jhatipur, District Panipat and regarding the said accident A Roznamcha was registered with Police Station Samalkha on 26.07.2017. In the said accident, the vehicle in question has been totally damaged. The complainant submitted claim application alongwith all original/attested required documents with the insurance company. The total damage was confirmed by the OPs surveyor after examining the vehicle in question. After receiving the report of surveyor, the OP assured the complainant to release his insurance claim of the abovesaid damaged vehicle very soon. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times to get the insurance claim regarding the abovesaid damaged vehicle alongwith other expenses but the OPs lingered on the matter under one or the other pretext. The said damaged vehicle is lying in the Garage of Sameer Motors, near P.S.Chandni Bagh, Sector-24, HUDA, Panipat and the garage owner demanding Rs.3000/- per month as parking charges of the abovesaid damaged car w.e.f.27.07.2017. The OPs have not released the Insurance Claim, parking charges and other expenses to the complainant so far which the insurance company is liable to pay the same as per rule and due to which the complainant has suffered lot of harassment, mental pain, physical harassment as well as financial loss. The OPs are fully liable to pay Rs.8,65,000/- as total loss of the abovesaid vehicle, Rs.2,00,000/- as mental harassment, Rs.5,00,000/- as business loss, Rs.21,000/- as parking charges of the abovesaid vehicle till today and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested to pay the claim amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 in this regard to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; premature; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on receiving the intimation from insured/owner regarding loss of car, OPs appointed IRDA approved surveyor Shri Sanjiv Chhabra to inspect the vehicle and assessed the loss. Pursuant to the inspection of the surveyor, the OPs insurance company decided to consider the settlement of claim in accordance with the option available with OPs under condition no.3 of the insurance policy, vide replacing the damaged vehicle with another vehicle of same make and model and substantially in the same condition in which the insured vehicle was prior to the date of occurrence in this case. OPs, vide letter dated 22.01.2018 requested the complainant to let have his concurrence within 15 days of receipt of letter, so that OPs may arrangement for replacement of the vehicle but complainant has not replied the letter of OPs. Perforce another letter dated 13.02.2018 was sent to complainant for the same purpose but complainant has not made any reply. The OPs are ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Claim of the complainant is pending due to non-cooperation of complainant and present complaint being premature, deserves dismissal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 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.C11 and closed the evidence on 11.07.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 14.11.2019.

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 has purchased a car (Skoda Laura) having registration no.HR-06AF-7317 in the year 2011 and the same was insured with the OPs. On 25.07.2017 the abovesaid vehicle met with an accident near village Jhatipur, District Panipat and regarding the said accident In the said accident, the vehicle in question has been totally damaged. The complainant submitted claim application alongwith all original/attested required documents with the insurance company. The total damage was confirmed by the OPs surveyor after examining the vehicle in question. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times to get the insurance claim regarding the abovesaid damaged vehicle alongwith other expenses but the OPs lingered on the matter under one or the other pretext.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs, in brief, is that on receiving the intimation from insured/owner regarding loss of car, OPs appointed IRDA approved surveyor Shri Sanjiv Chhabra to inspect the vehicle and assessed the loss. Pursuant to the inspection of the surveyor, the OPs insurance company decided to consider the settlement of claim in accordance with the option available with OPs under condition no.3 of the insurance policy, vide replacing the damaged vehicle with another vehicle of same make and model and substantially in the same condition in which the insured vehicle was prior to the date of occurrence in this case. OPs, vide letter dated 22.01.2018 requested the complainant to let have his concurrence within 15 days of receipt of letter, so that OPs may arrangement for replacement of the vehicle but complainant has not replied the letter of OPs. Perforce another letter dated 13.02.2018 was sent to complainant for the same purpose but complainant has not made any reply. The OPs are ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. Claim of the complainant is pending due to non-cooperation of complainant and present complaint being premature.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. As per the version of the OPs the complaint is pre-mature as the claim of the complainant neither settled nor repudiated. On inspection of the survey report, the company decided to consider the settlement of the claim in accordance with the option available with the OPs under condition no.3 of the insurance policy Ex.R3, i.e. replacing the damaged vehicle with another vehicle of the same make and model and in the same condition in which the insured vehicle was prior to the date of accident. OPs, vide letter Ex.R1 dated 22.10.2018 requested the complainant to let have his concurrence within fifteen days on receipt of letter, so that OPs may arrange replacing of the vehicle, but the complainant did not reply the letter issued by the OPs. Perforce another letter dated 13.02.2018 Ex.R2 was sent to the complainant for the same purpose but the complainant did not pay any heed to the same. The OPs are ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R3. The claim of the complainant is pending due to non-cooperation of the complainant.

9.             The OPs had wrote letters Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 but the complainant has not replied to the aforesaid letters. The claim of the complainant is still pending for settlement before the insurance company(OPs). Therefore, there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the OPs at this stage.

10.            The present complaint is dismissed being pre-mature. However, the complainant is at liberty to give his option as desired by the OPs, vide letter Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and in that eventuality OPs are directed to release the claim of the complainant.

11.            In view of the above observation, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:06.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member