Haryana

Karnal

CC/101/2019

Suresh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Sachdeva

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 101 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.22.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 09.12.2019

 

Suresh Chand son of Shri Dile Ram resident of VPO Pal Nagar, Kachhwa Road, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered office at Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office At-Sector-12, City Center, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                         …..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 Amit Sachdeva Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Atul Mittal 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 got insured his vehicle motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-AE-3794 from OPs, vide policy no.98512393, valid from 14.06.2016 to 13.06.2017. The insured value of the vehicle was assessed by OPs was Rs.22,000/-. On 06.08.2016, the complainant’s son namely Sunit went to I.T.I.Karnal for appearing in his examination on the abovesaid motorcycle. The son of complainant duly parked the motorcycle inside the I.T.I. premises and duly locked the vehicle and entered into the examination hall to appear in examination at about 12.30 p.m. After the examination was over, the son of complainant came out and found that the motorcycle was not there. Sunit searched the motorcycle and enquired from the people standing there but same was not found and the same was stolen by some unknown person. Thereafter, complainant’s son called at 100 number on same day and gave a written application to police on the same day. The officials of police told to Sunit that firstly they will search the bike at all probable places and if the same is not found then FIR will be lodged by police. The son of complainant had given the written application regarding the theft of his motorcycle to police station sector-9 on the same day. The police lodged the FIR, vide no.0637 dated 09.08.2016 under section 379 of IPC and investigations were conducted  by police in this regard, but the bike was not found and final report under section 173Cr.P.C of untraceable had been filled by police regarding the said motorcycle. The complainant also sent the intimation to the OPs in this regard immediately and lodged the claim with the OPs with all necessary documents required by OPs.  Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs so many times and requested them to release his genuine claim but OPs did not pay the claim and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.07.2017 to the OPs in this regard but it also did not yield any result. Lastly, OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 28.08.2017 on the ground that’s i.e. delay in FIR of three days. 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 OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed by OPs by way of appointment of Vijay Kant Vashist as Investigator who thoroughly investigated the claim of the complainant and submitted the detailed report dated 17.03.2017 and also recorded the statement of Shri Suresh Chand, & Shri Sunit Kumar and also found that the alleged theft occurred on 06.08.2016 but FIR was lodged on 09.08.2016 and company was intimated on 10.09.2016 after a delay of almost 34 days. As per the terms and condition no.1 of the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately to the insurer as well as to the concerned police station after the incident came to his notice. On account of delayed intimation, the OPs company was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Hence, claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated as No Claim. 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.C10 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan Ex.OW1/A, affidavit of Vijay Kant Vashist Investigator Ex.OW2/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O13 and closed the evidence on 26.11.2019.

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 got insured his vehicle bearing no.HR-05-AE-3794 with the OPs, vide policy no.98512393, effective from 14.06.2016 to 13.06.2017, with IDV value of Rs.22,000/-.  On 06.08.2018 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by someone and in this regard a FIR no.0637 dated 09.08.2016 was got registered by Police Station Karnal. The complainant filed a claim form with OPs and submitted all the concerned documents but OPs neither approved the claim of the complainant nor sent any reply to the claim and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the baseless ground.

7.             The case of the OPs is that the vehicle in question of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person in the alleged area. The claim of the complainant was thoroughly processed by OPs by way of appointment of Vijay Kant Vashist as Investigator who thoroughly investigated the claim of the complainant and submitted the detailed report dated 17.03.2017 and also recorded the statement of Shri Suresh Chand, & Shri Sunit Kumar and also found that the alleged theft occurred on 06.08.2016 but FIR was lodged on 09.08.2016 and company was intimated on 10.09.2016 after a delay of almost 34 days. As per the terms and condition no.1 of the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately to the insurer as well as to the concerned police station after the incident came to his notice. On account of delayed intimation, the OPs company was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Hence, claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated as No Claim.

8.             Admittedly, the motorcycle in question was stolen during subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs, on the ground that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 06.08.2016 and FIR was got lodged by the complainant on 08.08.2016 and the intimation was given to the OPs on 10.09.2016, after a delay of almost 34 days. The investigation of the present case was carried out by the investigator of the OPs and as per the report of the Investigator Ex.OP8 the claim of the complainant is genuine and may be settled as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

9.             On the other hand, the counsel of the complainant submitted that the complainant has given intimation to the OPs on the same day and moved an application before the police on the same day but police did not lodge the FIR on the same day.

10.            To wriggle out the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant initially tried to search the motorcycle at his own level and when the same could not be traced out then the matter was reported to the police immediately. In authority Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in which Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.11 of the order has specifically mentioned that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.  In view of above authority, there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant, but the OPs refused to settle his claim on false ground of delay of 34 days in intimation. In the present case complainant gave the intimation to the police or OPs on the same day but police lodge the FIR after two days. Hence, there is no fault on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. No other point argued by the OPs.

10.            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence complainant is entitled for sum assured.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.22,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation 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 Rs.5500/- towards the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:09.12.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member