Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 703
Instituted on : 19.12.2019.
Decided on : 02.07.2024.
Ravi Saini age 24 years s/o Sh. Ramesh Saini R/o H.No.1525/21, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance company Limited, IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 at present IFFCO House, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Director.
- IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.1, 1st floor Near Agro Mall Sector-14, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.P.S.Kinha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is registered owner of a car bearing registration No.HR-26CH-5940 which was insured from the opposite party No.1 vide policy no.M5691006 for a period from 25.01.2019 to 24.01.2020. It is further submitted that on 30.05.2019 the friend of complainant namely Aman had taken the said vehicle and when he reached at Jalebi Chowk, Kharawar Bye-pass, Rohtak then suddenly a Neel Gai came in front of the car and in process of saving the cow he applied the brakes, due to which a tractor trolley collided with the car from back side and the vehicle was badly damaged. The complainant informed the officials of opposite party No.1 in this regard and vehicle was got surveyed by the surveyor of the company and he prepared the estimate report as total damage. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to respondents as desired by them and applied for insurance claim. The complainant requested the opposite parties to disburse the claim amount in his favour but despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainant. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to disburse the claim amount of Rs.1350000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident till its actual realization, to pay Rs.100000/- for causing mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has submitted that on 31.05.2019 intimation was received that Volkswagen Car bearing registration no.HR-26CH-5940 of the complainant had met with an accident while it was at Jalebi Chowk(Rohtak). Upon intimation of loss, immediately Mr. Sunny Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to conduct a survey and assess the loss. He submitted his report enumerating the following points.: (i) That case was investigated by fact finder agency and after this fact and finding found that there is misrepresentation of facts which is violation of policy conditions. ii) Despite of several reminders the insured has not submitted the reply of the letters sent by the company. As there is mis-match of the information, the damages do not match as per the cause of loss given by the insured, misrepresentation of facts regarding two persons travelling in the car, as both the air bags were deployed after accident, whereas insured submitted that only Aman was in the vehicle. It is further submitted that Mr. Charan Jeet Singh was also appointed as Investigator in the case for ascertaining the true facts and the required documents. He submitted his report and highlighted the following points: i) That fact was submitted as only one person being an occupant. ii) That the documents pertaining to toll receipts that determinate the exact location of the vehicle as the time of accident were not submitted. The respondent insurance company wrote many letters dated 30.12.2019, 20.01.2020, 12.02.2020 and a closure letter dated 29.02.2020 and sought clarifications but the insured failed to provide the documents/clarifications as sought by the insurance company through these letters. Insured is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C34 and closed his evidence on 27.06.2022 of this Commission. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and made a statement that documents filed by the complainant as Ex.C1 to Ex.C25 be also read on behalf of opposite parties as the complainant has wrongly exhibited the documents of opposite parties. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties also tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R14 and closed his evidence on dated 23.04.2024.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground of misrepresentation of facts regarding two persons travelling in the car, as both the air bags were deployed after accident, whereas insured submitted that only Aman was in the vehicle. It is further contended that the insured failed to provide the documents/clarifications as sought by the insurance company through letters dated 30.12.2019, 20.01.2020, 12.02.2020 and 29.02.2020 . In this regard it is observed that at the time of accident, Aman was driving the vehicle and his statement has not been recorded by the investigator. The actual fact can be disclosed by the Aman who has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/2. But on the other hand it is not contended by the opposite party that whether travelling of one or two persons in the car was having any impact on the accident. Hence it hardly matters that one or two persons were travelling in the car at the time of accident. Moreover, the investigator in his report Ex.C5 has concluded that: “At the time of accident vehicle was driven by Aman and he was alone”. Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. However, it is also on record that four letters were issued by the insurance company to the complainant regarding the clarification and for submission of relevant documents which were required for the disposal of claim. But these clarification/documents have not been submitted by the complainant timely before the insurance company. Hence as per our opinion 25% amount of claim is deductible on account of violation of terms and conditions of the policy for not providing the timely information to the opposite parties as well as on account of scrap value. At the time of arguments, a document ‘Annexure-JNA’ regarding loan agreement termination/HPA cancellation has been placed on record by ld. Counsel for the complainant. Hence the claim amount is payable to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per IDV of vehicle(Rs.1350000/-) after deducting 25% amount i.e. Rs.1012500/-(Rs.1350000/- less Rs.337500/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.1012500/-(Rupees ten lac twelve thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.12.2019 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to send a letter to RTO for cancellation of R.C within 15 days. Complainant is further directed not to use the vehicle in any manner and not to ply the same on road.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.07.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………………………
Vijender Singh, Member.
