Haryana

Karnal

CC/24/2019

Vikas Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ram Lal Bilam

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 24 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.16.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 13.01.2020

 

Vikas Kalra son of Shri Daljit Singh Kalra resident of house no.1100, ward no.13, Kaarnli Gate, Taraori, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office-Iffco Sadan CI, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, serving office-c/o Hafed District Office, Ground floor, SCO no.19-20 Part-1, Karnal.

3. Amit Kamra son of Shri Baldev Raj Kamra Agent of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limtied resident of Pehalwan Colony, Taraori, District 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 Ram Lal Billan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Naveen Kheterpal Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   OP no.3 exparte.

                 

                   (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 car make Swift Desire, bearing registration no.HR-22-J-0002 with the OPs, vide policy no.1-F331ZCO P400 29259114 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, valid from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018. On 02.03.2018 the said car met with an accident on Shahabad G.T. Road, Kurukshetra and the said vehicle suffered extensive damage. The intimation regarding the abovesaid accident was given to the OPs no.1 and 2 and they appointed surveyor namely Mr. Virender and on 5.3.2018, the surveyor of the OPs no.1 and 2 inspected the vehicle of the complainant and at the time of inspection, the said surveyor told the complainant that the vehicle has suffered the damage to the tune of Rs.70,000/- and he submit his report to the OPs no.1 and 2 and then intimation would be given to the complainant regarding the status of the claim of the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs no.1 and 2 so many times to pay claim amount but OPs no.1 and 2 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 7.3.2018 on the ground that “in case the basis of availing the No Claim Bonus (NCB) under the current policy is incorrect, then the company may at its discretion impose suitable damages on the preferred claim which may include forfeiture of all benefits on own damage section of policy.” In was further stated in the abovesaid letter that “in light of above, we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable and we are closing the claim as ‘No Claim.’ The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is illegal and unjustified and not binding on the right of the complainant. 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, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the claim in question of the complainant was repudiated for concealment of previous claim and consequently availing no claim bonus, which otherwise was not applicable to him. It is further pleaded that on receipt of intimation from insured/owner regarding loss of car in question, OPs appointed an independent IRDA approved surveyor Mr. Virender Kumar, to inspect the damage vehicle. The OP company also check the claim history of the vehicle from the website of insurance information Bureau of India and found that the insured has taken a claim of Rs.15,735/- from SBI General Insurance Policy/ies for the loss on 02.07.2016 for the same vehicle. This fact totally concealed by the insured at the time of obtaining the present policy in question from the OPs and obtained the policy under the benefit of No Claim Bonus, which was not correct. The claim of the insured is not maintainable, as there is misrepresentation of facts on the part of the insured, which constitutes gross violation of terms and condition of the policy. Hence, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, vide repudiation letter dated 07.03.2018. 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.             Initially, Mr. Amit on behalf of OP no.3 appeared and case was adjourned to file the written version on behalf of OPs. On 22.05.2019 OPs no.1 and 2 filed their written version but OP no.3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on 25.07.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 11.12.2019..

6.             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.

7.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle bearing no. HR-22-J-0002 with the OPs, vide policy no.1-F331ZCO P400 29259114, valid from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018. On 02.03.2018 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and in this regard complainant intimated the OPs. Thereafter, OPs appointed surveyor, who visited the spot and told that the vehicle has suffered the damage to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter, complainant many times visited to the OPs for settlement of the claim but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the baseless ground.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that the vehicle in question of the complainant was met with an accident and complainant informed the OP in this regard. OP appointed the surveyor and submitted his report the claim in question of the complainant was repudiated for concealment of previous claim and consequently availing no claim bonus, which otherwise was not applicable to him.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground, for concealment of previous claim and consequently availing no claim bonus which otherwise was not applicable to him. As per claim history report Ex.R3. The complainant has availed the claim of Rs.15,735/- from S.B.I. General Insurance on 02.07.2016. As per the insurance policy Ex.C4 the vehicle in question again insured by the SBI General Insurance from 11.06.2016 to 10.06.2017 and thereafter for the next year, the vehicle in question was again got insured by the complainant from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018 from insurance company from the OP.

10.            When the complainant got insured his vehicle from the OP on 11.06.2017 vide policy Ex.C2, the agent of the OP may have enquired about any claim obtained by the complainant in the previous year, then complainant might be replied in negative because complainant has not availed any claim during the period of previous policy. We have gone through the entire record placed by both parties. There is nothing on the file that the complainant has availed any claim during the validation of previous policy. Thus, the act of OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

11.            Learned counsel for complainant submits that complainant has spent Rs.70,000/- for the repair of the vehicle. All the record of Bhatia Motors (from where complainant got his vehicle repaired) and thirty two vehicles which were parked in the premises of Bhatia Motors were burnt on 18.03.2018 due to fire in its premises, that is why, the complainant has failed to place on record bill with regard to repairing of his vehicle. In this regard, owner of the Bhatia Motors lodged the DDR (which is placed on record as Ex.C11) in the concerned Police Station. This facts are not denied by the OPs. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.70,000/- as spent by him for repairing of his vehicle.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.70,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:13.01.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member