Haryana

StateCommission

A/188/2021

SHABBIR AHMED KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

HARSHIT

21 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 First Appeal No.188 of 2021

                                                 Date of Institution: 31.08.2021

                                                               Date of Decision: 21.07.2022

 

Shabbir Ahmed Khan aged 55 years S/o Sh.Atta Mohd. R/o B-541, Near Dabua Masjid, Dabua colony, NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad Haryana Pin Code 121001.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon 122001.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Divisional Office: 209, 2^nd Floor, SSR Corporate Park, 13/6, Delhi-Mathura Road, Sector 27-B, Faridabad 121003.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Harshit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that complainant  is registered owner of polo car bearing registration No HR 51 BC 4825. The vehicle was got insured with opposite party. The insurance of the vehicle was valid from 30.06.2018 to 29.06.2019. The total value of the vehicle was Rs.3,25,500/-. On 16.09.2018, the vehicle met with an accident when a stray cattle came in front of the car and to save the said cow, the car became imbalanced and front wheel of the car got struck in a ditch. The complainant   alongwith labourer suffered injuries whereas the vehicle got totally damaged. He lodged the DDR No.22 dated 16.09.2018 and also informed the OP about this incident.  Surveyor was appointed, who inspected the car and submitted his report to the OPs.  He took his damaged vehicle to Volkswagen Delhi Metropolitan.  He requested  the OP to release the payment of claim amount, but, instead of releasing the claim amount, OP sent letter dated 01.03.2019 vide which the OP  has alleged that claim of the complainant was not tenable and did not fall under the purview of policy.  He sent legal notice dated 27.06.2019 to the OP, but to no avail.   He again requested the OP to release the claim amount, but, OP flatly refused the claim of the complainant on 29.05.2018. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

2.       Notice being issued, opposite party filed reply.   It was submitted that upon intimation on 01.03.2019, the surveyor was appointed, who reported that vehicle was used for hire and reward at the time of accident and damages to the vehicle does not co relate with cause of loss.  As such, as per terms and conditions of the policy, claim was not payable It was submitted that on 01.03.2019, the OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Objections about locus standi, , jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint, time barred, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad (In short “District Commission”) has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.03.2021.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Harshit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that complainant’s claim was wrongly repudiated by the insurance company.  The complainant did not conceal any material facts from the OPs, and requested the OPs to release the claim amount, but, instead of releasing the claim amount,  wrongly repudiated the claim.  The complainant is entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

7.      On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount because as per the surveyor report, the vehicle was used for hire and reward at the time of accident and damage of vehicle did not co-relate with cause of loss.

8.      This Commission does not concur with the submission made on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of  Ex. R-1 shows that the claim does not fall under the purview of the policy as the surveyor  has clearly disclosed in his report that the vehicle was used for hire or reward and damage of vehicle did not co-relate with cause of loss.  The terms and conditions cast a legal duty upon the parties and they are bound to follow the terms and conditions of the policy. The OPs rightly legally and validly repudiated the claim of the complainant there being breach of policy conditions and same was duly informed to him vide letter dated 01.03.2019.  As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the insured amount. The policy does not cover the use for hire or reward.  Learned District Commission was fully justified when it dismissed the complaint.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

21st  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)