Haryana

StateCommission

A/241/2019

JOGENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RISHI PAL SINGH

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       First Appeal No.241 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 08.03.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing: 29.09.2022

Date of pronouncement:22.12.2022

 

 

Jogender S/o Sh.Om Parkash, R/o Village Bajad, Post Office Ganiyar, Tehsil Ateli Mandi, Distt. Mahendergarh Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office Iffco Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center,Saket, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.      Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office Iffco through Agent Inderjeet Singh S/o Sh.Ajay Singh, R/o Village Salimpur (Turkiawas), Tehsil Ateli Mandi,Distt.  Mahendergarh.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.J.P.Nahar, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 76 days in filing the  appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay.

2       The present appeal No.241 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahendergarh (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.247 of 2017, which was allowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant was registered owner of vehicle Innova bearing registration No.HR-72-2538, which was insured with the OPs-Insurance Company.  The vehicle in question was insured with the Opposite party (OP) vide policy bearing No.94424481 for the period w.e.f. 14.10.2015 to 13.10.2016.    The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,60,000/-. On 23.02.2016, the said vehicle met with an accident when Neel Cow suddenly came in front of it.  The vehicle was totally damaged.   The claimant was lodged with the OP. Surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report. 
The complainant requested the  OPs to pay the claim amount, but, the OPs illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 03.2.2017. Thus  there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence this complaint.

4.      Notice issued, OPs filed separate written statement.   OP No.1 submitted that policy in question was issued from Delhi office and complainant informed about the damage to the vehicle after about 22 days. After intimation, surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss of Rs.1,50,000/-.  The complainant intentionally concealed the fact that his leg got fractured at the time of accident, which was in violation of the policy. This is how his claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP No.1 vide repudiation letter dated 03.02.2017. thus there being no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP, the complaint deserved dismissal.

5.      OP No.2 has filed separate written statement. The complainant got insured his vehicle through OP No.1. The matter is between insurance company and complainant, OP No.2 has not concern whatsoever about the claim of the complainant.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Narnaul has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 16.11.2018, which is as under:-

“Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and going through the case law referred above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.1-Insurance Company to pay the assessed amount of  Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 03.02.2017 till its actual realization.  Further the OP No.1-Insurance company is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for harassment and harassment and litigation expenses.  The complainant is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the OP No.1-Insurance company u/s 25 & 27 of C.P.Act, 1986.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount.

8.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.R.P.Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.J.P.Nahar, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

9       It is not disputed that during the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident.  It is also true that complainant had got the insurance policy which was to remain in force from 14.10.2015 to 13.10.2016 having IDV of his innova to be Rs.5,60,500/-.  It is also not disputed that at the time of accident, the vehicle was got damaged.  It is also not disputed that after accident, surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the vehicle of Rs.1,50,000/-.   The plea of the complainant-appellant was that the amount awarded by the District Commission be enhanced as learned District Commission has awarded a meagre amount. The written arguments filed by the counsel for the respondent, vide which learned counsel for the respondent submitted that complainant has failed to rebut the survey report of the surveyor and the District Commission has rightly allowed the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only in the complaint. The order dated 16.11.2018 of the District Commission was perfectly in accordance with the law.  Learned District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No occasion for enhancement of compensation is made out. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

10.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

22nd December, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)