Haryana

StateCommission

A/320/2019

RAJNISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ROHIT RANA

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.320 of 2018

 Date of Institution:29.04.2019

  Date of Decision:29.04.2019

 

Rajnish Kumar S/o Sh. Mange Ram, R/o House No.205-B, Near Devi Mandir, Village Jundla, Tehsil & District Karnal.

…..Appellant.

Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, HAFED Building, SCO No.19-20, Part-I, Sector-12, Karnal.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member.

                                     

Present:-    Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

 

ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.                As per order dated 29.04.2019 contained in letter No.991, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got insured his Volkswagon car bearing registration No.HR06/Y/4981, Model 2011 with the opposite party (in short ‘O.P’) vide policy No.P-400/99607872 for the period 22.08.2016 to 21.08.2017 for an amount of Rs.6,70,000/-. Said policy was comprehensive. It was alleged that on 15.07.2017 the said car was met with an accident and the vehicle in question was totally damaged. Matter was reported to local police and a DDR was registered in this regard. It was further alleged that intimation was also sent to the O.P and surveyor was appointed by the O.P who inspected the damaged vehicle. It was further alleged that the complainant submitted all the relevant document with I.P but despite waiting after long time no response was received from O.P. The claim of complainant has neither repudiated nor declined. Thus, there was deficiency on the part of O.P and prayed for allowing the complaint.

3.                Upon notice, O.P has appeared and filed its written version. Taking plea therein that the claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the O.P has decided to consider the settlement of the claim of the complainant in accordance with the option available to the O.P. under the condition No.3 of the insurance policy for replacing the damaged vehicle with another vehicle of the same make and model and substantially in the same condition in which the insured vehicle was prior to the date of occurrence in this case. It was submitted that the O.P has also supplied the rate of depreciation for all other parts including wooden part will be as per schedule. Thereafter, O.P asked the complainant on 07.12.2017 to let the O.P has his concurrence on the above settlement and also coordinate with the surveyor for further processing the claim, but complainant kept mum and has not opted till date. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4.              After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short ‘learned District Forum’),  dismissed the complaint of complainant vide order dated 12.03.2019. 5.                    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has preferred the present appeal.

6.               The arguments have been advanced by Sh. Rohit Rana, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire records of the appeal had been properly perused and examined.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the genuine claim complainant is not settled by the O.P as the insurance company intentionally delayed the claim of the complainant. O.P. only offered the complainant to compensate/repair/replace in terms of condition No.3 vide letter dated 07.12.2017 i.e. only after filing the Consumer complaint on 01.12.2017, which shows the mala-fide intention of O.P. Learned counsel for appellant further prayed for acceptance of present appeal.

8.                From the perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant is owner of car Volkswagon Vento bearing registration No.HR06Y-4981, Model 2011 and the same was insured with O.P vide policy No.P-400/99607872 for the period 22.08.2016 to 21.08.2017 for an amount of Rs.6,70,000/-. The said car was met with an accident on 15.07.2017. Thereafter, DDR was registered and O.P has also intimated by the complainant and claim was submitted. Surveyor was appointed by the O.P and as per the surveyor, vehicle was found to be total loss.

9.                Thus, in the considered view of this Commission, complainant is directed to submit all the relevant document with regard to settlement of his claim with the O.P within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order and in case the appellant has not satisfied, he can approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance. With these observations, impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by learned District Forum is set aside and present appeal stands allowed.

 

 

April   29^th,  2019                                                                   Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl. Bench              

R.K.