Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 522.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 04.10.2019

                                                                   Decided on      :  01.02.2024.

Vivek Kaushik s/o Sh. Gita Ram, R/o H.No.1601/21, Chunni Pura, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).(L.R.of Deceased, died during the pendency of the complaint.  Now represented by his following L.Rs:-

1. Smt. JyotiGoel widow wife of Vivek Kaushik
2. Sarth minor son of VivekKaushk
3. Peehu minor daughter of Vivek Kaushik

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. IffcoTokio General Insurance company Ltd. Registered Office-IffcoSadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017.
2. S.H.O.Civil Lines, Police Station, Rohtak-124001. Email shocivillinertk-hry@nic.in.
3. S.S.P Rohtak, Mini Secretariat, Rohtak-124001. Email:sproh@hry.nic.in

…….Respondents/Opposite parties.

                   COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.DigvijayJakhar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite partyNo.2 & 3 already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is owner of vehicle Suzuki Access Registration no.HR12U3666 and got insured the same from the respondent no.2 vide policy no.27358787 and the IDV of Rs.25050/- for the period  from 16.10.2017 to 15.10.2018 midnight.On 14.10.2018 the said vehicle was stolen when the complainant parked it at Mansarover Park and went for morning walk and when he came back, his vehicle was not there. Complainant tried to search the vehicle at its own level but failed to find out. At last complainant filed a complaint to respondent no.2. Later on the respondent no.2 registered an FIR No.0275 dated 14.10.2018 and informed the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 generated the claim no.37688850. The complainant received a call fromrespondent no.1 for statement and other formalities and to hand over the documents which were inhis custody. It is further submitted that RC and some other documents were in the stolen vehicle and it is mentioned in the FIR too. After all the formalities, respondent no.1 assured the complainant to do the needful. But after 4 months, when complainant did not receive any response, he contacted the respondent no.1 and the respondent No.1 asked for untraced report certified by SHO/Police station. Complainant contacted the respondent no.2 for the same but he told that the investigation is under process and it will take around one more month. But even after two months, no fruitful response has been received from respondent no.2 and complainant requested respondent no.1 to 3 several times but any heed was not paid to his genuine requests. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.25050/- on account of IDV alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f.14.10.2018  to till the date of final payment and to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its  written statement has submitted that on receipt of intimation on 15.10.2018 about the theft of Suzuki Access of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-12U-3666 the claim was duly entertained in due course and the respondent insurance company on its part appointed Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma,  an IRDA accredited surveyor and loss assessor and investigator for ascertain the facts and collection of paper/necessary documents.
Inspite of reminders, insured did not produce the originalkeys of the lost vehicle, untraced report duly certified by the SHO/police station. Respondent insurance company not repudiated the claim rather closed the file on account of non-submission of required documents. Respondent insurance company has sent various letters to the insured dated 29.05.2019, 27.06.2019, 07.08.2019 and finally letter dated 21.08.2019 for completing the necessary requirements for the settlement of theft claim such as original keys of the lost vehicle, untraced report certified by SHIO/Police Station, last service record, R.C. particulars, record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody etc.   But the insured/complainant not submitted the sameto the respondent insurance company Hence on the basis of the final letter the respondent insurance company rightly closed the file as ‘No  Claim’ and duly conveyed to insured vide letter dated 30.9.2019. Hence there is no deficiency inservice on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However non appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 & 3 and opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.03.2021 of this Commission.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6  and closed his evidence on 01.07.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A,documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence on 05.09.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the respondent the necessary requirements have not been completed by the complainant for settlement of the claim of the complainant so the insurance company closed the claim of the complainant  as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 30.09.2019 which is placed on record as Ex.R1. The insurance company has demanded the originaldocuments such as original keys of the lost vehicle, untraced report certified by SHIO/Police Station, last service record, R.C. particulars, record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody etc. To prove the pleading the insurance company has placed on record 6 letters  Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 but the same are not supported with any courier receipt, postal receipt  or any acknowledgement to prove that whether the same were delivered to the complainant or not.  We have also minutely perused the survey report placed on record as Ex.R6. As per the concluding para of the survey report, the surveyor has submitted that the insured did not submit the key of the vehicle to the surveyor or in the insurance company and he suggested  the claim of the complainant shall be repudiated on  the above mentioned ground. We have minutely perused the documents. At the time of arguments untraced report is placed on record by the complainant which is placed on record as ‘Annexure –JN-A’.  The other documents have already been placed on record by the complainant.  As per copy of email Ex.C3, complainant had attached the FIR and insurance policy with the email. As per the complainants they have already submitted the documents with the insurance company. Nothing is pending  on their part. So many emails have been placed on record Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, as per which the complainant had already handed over the relevant documents with the insurance company. Untrace report is also on the file. Perusal of Ex.R1 shows that  the key of the vehicle has not been submitted by the complainant. As such the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay IDV Rs.25050/- less 20% on account of non submission of key. The claim is against the vehicle so the awarded amount be paid to the wife of deceased  i.e. Smt. JyotiGoel. 

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.20040/-(Rupees twenty thousand and forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.10.2019  till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant No.1 Smt. JyotiGoel widow of deceased Vivek Kaushik within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC within 15 days. 

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

01.02.2024.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.