Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/349/2018

Somvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd and Other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh P S Shekhawat

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION GURGAON-122001.

                                                          Consumer Complaint No: 349 of 2018                                                                  Date of Institution: 17.07.18/27.07.2018                                                            Date of Decision:  19.04.2022

 

Somveer son of Shri Ram Kishan, resident of House No.7, VPO, Jondhi Tehsil and District Jhajjar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ..….Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1.  Master Satyender Agent, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak Road, Opposite SBI Bank, Jhajjar.

 

2. Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Sadan C.I. District Centre, New Delhi-110017.

                       

……Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

BEFORE:    SHRI SANJEEV JINDAL, PRESIDENT.

                    MS. UPASANA BAGLA, MEMBER.

                    DR. RISHI DUTT KAUSHIK, MEMBER.

                    

Present:      Shri Joginder Malik & Sh.P.S.Sehrawat, Advocates for the complainant.

                   Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                   Shri Nagendra Nath Singh, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER       SANJEEV JINDAL, PRESIDENT.   

                   Briefly stated, the complainant averred that he was registered owner of a commercial vehicle AMW Hywa bearing registration No.HR-69A-3969 and insured with the OPs vide policy valid w.e.f. 16.06.2014 to 15.06.2015. On 14.06.2015, during the subsistence of the policy, the said vehicle was stolen from Basai Road, Gurgaon.  The complainant reported the matter to the police, in response to which, an FIR No.425 dated 15.06.2015 at P.S. Sector-10, Gurugram was registered. The said vehicle could not be traced out, and therefore, the police submitted the un-trace report before the Court of Sh. Devender Singh, learned JMIC, Gurugram.  Thereafter, the complainant informed the OP No.1 and also submitted the claim with the office of OP No.1 alongwith all the relevant documents with a request to pay his claim amount of Rs.14 lac. But even after the repeated requests, the insured amount had not been paid by the OPs.  A legal notice dated 12.12.2015 was also slapped on the OPs but it could not bring the desired results.

                   Earlier, the complainant had filed a complaint U/ s 12 of C.P. Act before the Consumer Forum at Jhajjar tilted as Somveer Versus Master Satyender Agent and another vide Complaint No.. 2 of 2016, which was allowed on 04.11.2016 but the OP No.1 preferred appeal against that order before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, wherein, on 13.03.2018, the following order was passed: -

‘In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-complainant, the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Jhajjar was set-aside and complaint No.02 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint on the same very cause of action before Competent Fora’. 

The jurisdiction of the complaint was at Gurugram as the vehicle in question was stolen at Gurugram and the un-trace report was also submitted in the court of Ld. JMIC at Gurugram.  Hence, this complaint.  In the end, the complainant prayed for directing the OPs to refund back the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.14,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft of the vehicle till its realization and also to pay compensation for mental agony & harassment of Rs.25,000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.              On notice, the OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its reply, whereas the OP No.1 had to be proceeded against exparte on 29.10.2019 as he did not appear despite due service in the Commission.  The OP No.2 in its reply contended that the present complaint was totally vexatious, misconceived, based on misrepresentation of facts, and thus, was not maintainable in law against the answering OP.  Moreover, the complaint was also liable to be dismissed for the reason which reads as under: -

          ‘The complainant failed to take reasonable care & protection towards the safety & security of the vehicle in question and there is unwarranted negligence on his part towards the same and hence, there is primafacie breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy for which reason he is not entitled for any amount as damages from the respondent-company’.

The case of complainant was that the vehicle in question was stolen on 14-06-2015 at 4:00 PM when the driver of the vehicle namely Chand Singh parked the vehicle on the road side at Basai Chowk and went for shopping in the market, that when the driver returned back after one and half hours, he found that the vehicle was missing from the spot, and that after searching the same at nearby location, he made a call at 100 number to inform the police regarding its theft but the details of the telephone number from which the alleged call was made, were neither supplied to the police nor the same were mentioned in the complaint or in the F.I.R No.425/2015 U/s 379 IPC registered at P.S. Sector-I0 Gurgaon which had been registered after the delay of one day. Upon information received, M/S Eminent Solv Serve Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was immediately appointed by the Company as an Independent Investigator which submitted its detailed investigation report dated 09.05.2017, in which, the investigator specifically stated that IT had repeatedly requested the complainant & visited his house to obtain the relevant documents as well as his statement and that even letters were sent to the complainant by speed post for submitting the relevant documents for the settlement of the claim of vehicle in question.  But, the complainant did not co-operate with the investigation procedure nor he submitted the relevant documents for the purpose of settlement of his claim. The complainant surrendered only one key of the vehicle in question before the Consumer Court after tampering with the same to create a false impression of being used. Even the driving license or address of the driver namely Chand Singh, who allegedly was driving the vehicle in question at the time of theft, was not given nor he was produced before the investigator. Further, there was difference in mobile number of the alleged driver of the vehicle in question from which the alleged information was given to the police.  The alleged telephone number was mentioned in the claim form as 8059006622 and in the FIR as 8685016749.  The entire conduct of the complainant & proximity of time of theft of the vehicle in question i.e just before the expiry of the validity of the insurance policy, had given rise to an impression that the allegation of theft was highly doubtful & managed with the intention to falsely & illegally claim the damages from the Insurance Company. The detailed investigation report as submitted by the investigator was annexed as Annexure- RI (Colly).  The OP-Company on scrutiny of detailed investigation report as submitted by the investigator & after due application of mind had found that the complainant did not adhere strictly to the compliance of written terms & conditions of the insurance policy, and thus, was guilty of violating the conditions of policy which provides as under;

“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from Ioss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precaution being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damages or any further damages to the vehicle shall be entirely on the insured's risk".

 

Therefore, in the light of the facts & circumstances explained above, the complainant was not entitled for any compensation or damages and his claim was liable to be rejected with cost. The complainant had also even failed to hand over the driving license of the person who was allegedly driving the vehicle in question at the time of its alleged theft. All other allegations made in the complaint were also denied as false and frivolous.  In the end, the OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record available on the file, carefully.

5.                After going through the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case, it emerges that the complainant got his vehicle bearing No. No.HR-69A-3969 insured from opposite party w.e.f 16.06.2014 to 15.06.2015 as shown in Annexure R1 (colly).  The said vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2015 when the same was parked at Basai Chowk, Gurgaon and on the basis of it an FIR bearing No.425 dated 15.06.2015 in PS Sector-10, Gurugram was recorded but the vehicle could not be traced.  Pursuant to it, the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs but the OPs did not make the payment of the claim amount which tantamounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant had initially filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jhajjar which was allowed but on preferring the appeal by OP No.1 before the Hon’ble State Commission, it was got dismissed as withdrawn on 13.03.2018 with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent Forum, and that, thereafter the present complaint was filed before this Forum on 17.07.2018.  The ground of denial by the OPs to the effect that the complainant had failed to take reasonable care or that he had not submitted the required documents, and as such, his claim had been denied on account of negligence on the part of the complainant, just cannot be held sustainable in the eyes of law being absolutely without merit, and thus, we are inclined to hold that non- reimbursement of the claim of the complainant by the OPs tantamounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.                Thus, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.14,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.  The complainant is also hereby held entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.20,000/-as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-.  The opposite party shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced.

 

19.04.2022

 

(Upasana Bagla)       (Rishi Dutt Kaushik)                (Sanjeev Jindal)

     Member                       Member                                President,

                                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Commission, Gurgaon