Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/309/2018

Mahavir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Wazir Singh

03 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/309/2018
Date of Institution	:	26/06/2018
Date of Decision	:	03/02/2021

 

 

Mahavir Singh son of Shri Fateh Singh, resident of House No.151-152, Green Park, Tehsil Camp, Panipat

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company through its Branch Manager/Regional Manager/Authorized Officer, Iffco Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., through its CMD/Authorized Signatory, Registered Office at Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company through its Director/Manager, Corporate Office Iffco Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurugram.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Wazir Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Niharika Goel, Vice Counsel for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments are, complainant had purchased a Safari car bearing registration No.HR-26AH-8850 from one Shri Dalbir Singh resident of village Ugra Kheri, District Panipat and got the ownership transferred in his name alongwith insurance policy and the insurer were the present OPs. The insurance was valid w.e.f. 10.9.2016 to 9.9.2017 and the IDV was ₹2,80,000/-. The terms and conditions of the policy remained the same as of the contract which was entered into among insurer with the previous owner. Further case is, on 14.6.2017 i.e. during the continuation of the policy when the complainant was going for his personal work, a stray animal suddenly came in front of the car and in order to save the animal the vehicle struck against a standing tralla at Panipat as a result of which the car was damaged. The driver of the tralla ran away from the spot.  The vehicle was found totally damaged. It was taken from the spot and the claim was submitted. The OPs had appointed surveyor and the claim was offered to be settled on non standard basis after deduction of 25% amount. However, subsequently OPs vide letter dated 22.1.2018 repudiated the claim by observing damages did not co-relate with cause and nature of accident.  Legal notice was issued but to no avail. Averred, correspondence and other proceedings of surveyor were done at Chandigarh, therefore, this Commission has the jurisdiction. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to pay ₹2,80,000/-  alongwith interest, compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and denied any offer was made for settlement of the claim on non standard basis after deduction of 25% amount of the insured declared value. The repudiation grounds were, surveyor was appointed who after investigation had found that though the vehicle was damaged, but, it was not damaged on 14.6.2017 i.e. the alleged date of accident. Hence, it does not have any coincidence with the alleged date of accident i.e. 14.6.2017.  As a result, the claim was not found just and genuine and, therefore, rightly repudiated.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     The sole controversy revolves around with regard to the correctness of the report dated 24.8.2017 (Annexure OP-2) submitted by the surveyor, Royal Associates, Investigating & Detective Agency. The said surveyor after investigation vide its report dated 24.8.2017, had opined as under:-

          “On the basis of above said findings and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that date of accident claimed by insured in intimation and claim form is not correct. In fact car met with accident about 2½ months before. It met with accident before transfer enforcement.  Insured could not produce any evidence/witness about accident, which shows that date & time of accident claimed by insured is not correct.  Even I.V. purchased for Rs.4 lacs, which shows that car was not in good condition and accident shown to just obtain claim. Insured himself confessed that accident took place about 2½ months before.  Detail of crane and eyewitness of accident was also not provided to us.  So claim is not genuine.  Insured has concealed facts about date of accident and purchase amount of I.V., which is clear breach of policy condition.  Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings.  This report is issued without prejudice.”

 

7.     A perusal of the opinion shows, the car met with an accident about two months before and the date of accident is not correct. Therefore, the claim was found not genuine.  We may refer here, according to the investigator, who clothed itself to be a crime investigating agency, has furnished the report and conducted the investigation as if the complainant was an accused by making claim. The complainant had paid the premium to the OPs.
8.     Even otherwise, perusal of the report of the investigator shows though he admitted the car was damaged, but, claimed it was not damaged on the date alleged in the consumer complaint. The investigator had gone on a side issue by asserting the claim is not genuine of the alleged date.  The investigator has a duty to verify the actual loss caused to the vehicle which he has not referred anywhere though impliedly had admitted that the vehicle was damaged probably in toto.  They were more interested in the falsification of the claim of the complainant applying the standard of proof required in civil or criminal cases.  His points of investigation were with regard to the actual loss caused to the vehicle in the accident while he has recorded a finding though the vehicle was damaged, but, not on the said date.
9.     The report of the surveyor is belied with the report submitted by the complainant to the police post Sector 6 of the concerned area which is Annexure C-4. Its recitals are reproduced below:-

          “On dated 15.06.2017 time 2:00 PM, the complainant in person submitted a complaint in the police post, Sector-6, Panipat, mentioning that respected Sir, I Mahavir Singh son of Sh. Fateh Singh, resident of H.No.151-152, Green Park, Panipat. On 14.06.2017, I was driving my car (HR26AH8850) towards Karnal at about 9:30 PM for my some personal work.  At the same time, a rootless animal came in front of my car.  Thereafter I lost the balance of my car in order save that rootless animal when I turned the car then the car struck under the back side of a trolla which was standing on the road.  My car was caused very heavy loss and the trolla’s driver drive away from the spot by getting advantage of darkness. Because of that, I could not see the trolla. This incident was taken place due to that rootless animal which came suddenly in front of my car.  So, I don’t want to take any legal action against anyone. Sd/- Mahavir Singh.  No legal action is required as no cognizable offence is found to be committed after investigated the matter on spot.”

 

10.     Perusal of the report and the conclusion of the police is that no legal action was taken as no cognizable offence was found after investigating the matter on the site.  This shows, the vehicle was found damaged on the spot and site was visited by the police and the claim of the complainant was not falsified during the preliminary enquiry made by the police. The surveyor in its wisdom has not referred to this report of the police and how he belied the report.  Rather he has gone astray by not assessing the actual damage caused and claimed though the vehicle was damaged, but, not on the date alleged by the complainant.
11.     The surveyor further concluded, accident had taken place 2½ months before the alleged date.  Even in that period the vehicle was insured. If the complainant wanted to make a claim, it could have been easily submitted, therefore, the necessary conclusion is that the vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and the surveyor has failed to perform its duty with regard to the assessment of the damage and then to make a report. This report of the surveyor cannot be taken as a sacrosanct document to be followed blindly as a text of holy book Gita or any other religious book.  It cannot face the quasi judicial scrutiny of this Commission and, therefore, we proceed to quash it being illogical.  Hence, we conclude claim of complainant was unnecessarily repudiated by the OPs.  Thus, the OPs are proved to have indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to settle and pay the claim of ₹2,80,000/- (being the IDV of the vehicle) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 22.1.2018 till realization, subject to the condition complainant will get the RC of the vehicle transferred in the name of OPs for its salvage value or get it cancelled besides the fact that it is not misused.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/02/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President