DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.44/2017

Rajwati

W/o Shri Rishi Raj

R/o 331, Village Pehladpur

Bangar, South Delhi - 110042                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Complainant

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited

Through its Managing Director

Regd. Office At: Iffco Sadan

C-1, District Centre

Saket, New Delhi-110017                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                  ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution     :        03.02.2017

       Date of Order             :        22.11.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

Order

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The present complaint has been filed seeking Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 12 lakhs from the Opposite Party on the basis that the insured vehicle which in this case is Skoda Superb (hereinafter referred to as the said car) which is stated to be insured by the Opposite Party in the year 2016 at that value.

The complainant in the support of her claim has stated that her brother Shri Pawan had taken the said car to Feroz Shah Kotla stadium to watch an IPL Match and had parked the vehicle on the service road near gate of Shakti Sthal Raj Ghat. When he came back after watching the match, he did not find the vehicle at the place where he had parked it. In support of his claim, the complainant has provided a pass of the match held at Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium on 25.05.16 as also a copy of the F.I.R. dated 28.05.2016, vehicle registration certificate, insurance policy taken by the OP which is shown valid from 21. 03.2016 to 20.03. 2017, order of untraced report dated 30.06.2016 and letter of repudiation by the OP. It is interesting to note that though the complainant has filed her evidence on record, yet the affidavit does not mention any of these documents which have been filed along with the complaint. Vide an order dated 15.09.2020 the Counsel for the complainant had stated that he would be furnishing the documents in support of the date of purchase of the said car but he has not done so. The complainant has reiterated has claim in his written submissions.

On the other hand, the OP has filed his reply in which they allege that the complainant has withheld material facts and is misleading the Commission.           It is alleged that though the complainant is a resident of Delhi has however purchased the policy from Ludhiana for the purpose of getting her vehicle overwritten by using illegal means. It is alleged that the market value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,50,000 (since the complainant was the third owner) however, it was insured at Rs. 12 lakhs without any invoice. The OP further relies on an investigator report, parts of which has been reproduced in the reply. This report completely negates the claim of the complainant and states that the car was never stolen and in fact was found burnt near Panchi Gujran village and the entire act was planned to obtain a settlement from the OP.

The OP did not appear for most part in the proceedings before this commission as a result of which his right to file evidence, after giving multiple opportunities, was closed.

It is common knowledge that whenever, events like IPL are organised in any area, police and the organisers of the event earmark places for parking for the convenience of the people visiting the event. The brother of the complainant, in this case has parked the car near Shakti Sthal.  Interestingly, the area where the car is stated to be parked is a high security area. Also allegedly, the fact that the local police station where the brother of the complainant went directed him to the Crime Branch PS is not a plausible situation. The FIR has been filed online and the contents of the said FIR is what has been written by the brother of the complainant himself. It is stated in the FIR that the complainant visited the PS, but it is not clear as to why the brother of the complainant when he visited the PS would to choose to file E-FIR.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.653 OF 2020 dated January 24, 2020 has stated that the “registration of the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would substantiate the claim of the claimant that the vehicle is stolen. Not only that, but the surveyors appointed by the insurance company are also required to enquire whether the claim of the claimant regarding the theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, upon inquiry, finds that the claim of theft is genuine then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR, in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen”.

Since the claim of the complainant is unsubstantiated and the onus being on the complainant to prove his claim, the complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus. Also, the complainant should approach the Commission with clean hands which it appears in this case appears to be missing therefore, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. 

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties.