Haryana

Karnal

CC/122/2021

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Sachdeva

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 122 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.25.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:04.01.2023

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Khajan Singh, resident of House no.73 Narender Colony, Phooshgarh District-Karnal 132001 age 29 years.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited branch office at-C/o Hafed District Office, SCO 19-20, Part-1, ground floor Sector-12, Karnal through its Manager.

 

2.     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited office at-Iffco Bhawan, plot no.2b & c Sector-28 A 3^rd floor Madhya Marg Chandigarh-160002 through its Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Amit Sachdeva, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle Maruti EECO Car bearing registration no.HR-05-AX-7761 from the OPs, vide policy no.89942484, valid from 26.12.2017 to 25.12.2018. The insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs.3,45,424/-and paid a premium of Rs.16122/-.  On 23.12.2018, complainant alongwith his family went to Delhi to attend a marriage function at night. The complainant duly parked his vehicle and went for function. After attending the function, complainant came back to get his car but it was surprising that the car was not there. The complainant tried his best to search the car but the same was not found. The complainant immediately reported the incident to the police at Delhi and police lodged the FIR no.045637 dated 24.12.2018 in Police Station Hari Nagar West District Delhi. Thereafter, complainant informed the OPs regarding the theft of the insured car. Complainant also lodged the claim with the OPs and submitted all the relevant documents alongwith two keys of vehicle. The police could not succeed in getting the vehicle and finally police submitted untrace report to the concerned court of TIS Hazari Court, Delhi. After the closure report of police, complainant contacted the OPs and requested to release the claim amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to settle the claim but all in vain. Complainant received a letter dated 24.08.2018 from OPs, vide which OPs demanded some documents whereas complainant has already submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs at the time of lodging of the claim. Thereafter, complainant again received letters dated 18.9.2019 and 10.10.2019 from OPs, vide which OPs again demanded the documents. Upon this, the office in charge guided the complainant to go to Chandigarh office i.e. OP no.2. Complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and told that the required documents alongwith the two keys of vehicle has already been submitted with them and again requested to release the claim but OPs did not release the claim and lastly closed the claim of the complainant on the pretext of not providing the documents. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP could not proceed to process the claim of the complainant as he did not furnish the very basic and mandatory document i.e. claim form. Record copy of letter to RTO, statement of insured inspite of repeated requests in this regard through letters dated 24.08.2019, 18.09.2019 and 10.10.2019. The OPs are willing to settle the claim on furnishing the required documents by the complainant. The present complaint is premature and liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that on receipt of intimation of claim regarding theft of vehicle in question, OPs appointed Vikas Kumar & Associates to investigate the matter and collection of relevant claim documents. The said investigator issued various letters dated 25.04.2019, 02.05.2019 and 08.05.2019 to complainant for furnishing claim documents but no documents have been received by the investigator and said investigator left no other option but to close their investigation and submitted their report dated 15.07.2019. On perusal of the investigation report company also sent letters dated 24.08.2019, 18.09.2019 and final reminder dated 10.10.2019 to the complainant for furnishing of the following documents:-

1.     Claim form duly filled stamped.

2.     Record copy of letter RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody.

3.     Loan Account Statement.

4.     Non Repossession letter from Bank/Financer.

5.     Original Keys of lost vehicle.

6.     Original Court accepted FIR u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

7.     Statement of insured.

8.     Last user statement.

9.     RC particulars.

10.   100 number call detail.

 

When no documents of response received from the complainant, the OPs company left with no option but to close the claim file as no claim, vide letter dated 05.11.2019 presuming that the insured is not interested in pursuing his claim. By non-cooperating in the investigation of the matter and not supplying the relevant documents the insured was in clear breach of condition no.1 of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that only after closure of the claim file by the company, the complainant submitted few incomplete documents. The duly filled and signed claim form, record copy of letter to RTO, statement of insured has till the date not submitted by the complainant, hence the claim could not be proceeded further. The complainant instead of fulfilling the pending claim documents, preferred to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of order of Hon’ble Court of Jitendra Singh ACCM, West District TIS Hazari Courts, Delhi Ex.C4, copies of letters dated 24.08.2019, 18.09.2019, 10.10.2019 and 05.11.2019 Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, copy of PAN card of complainant Ex.C9, copy of letter dated 22.11.2021 Ex.C10, copy of non-repossession letter Ex.C11, copy of ration card Ex.C12, copy of claim form Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 24.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devendra Kumar Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Vikas Kumar Investigator Ex.OPW1/B, copies of letters dated 24.08.2019, 18.09.2019, 10.10.2019, 02.05.2019 Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP22 to Ex.OP26 repeated, postal receipt Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 25.04.2019 and postal receipt Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7, copy of letter dated 08.05.2019 and postal receipt Ex.OP8 and Ex.OP9, copy of letter dated 05.11.2019 Ex.OP10 and Ex.OP27 repeated, copy of cover note Ex.OP11 and Ex.OP22, copy of letter dated 15.07.2019 Ex.OP12, copy of letter dated 02.05.2019 and postal receipt Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP14, copy of letter dated 24.05.2019 and postal receipt Ex.OP15 and Ex.OP16, copy of letter dated 08.05.2019 and postal receipt Ex.OP17 and Ex.OP18, copy of RC Ex.OP19, copy of certificate of Gram Panchayat Ex.OP20, copy of FIR Ex.OP21, copy of non-repossession letter Ex.OP23 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen.  Information regarding theft of the vehicle was also given to police as well as to the OPs.  OPs had appointed an investigator namely Shri Vikas Kumar Bagri for investigating the matter. The OPs demanded documents from the complainant, complainant submitted all the required documents with the OPs. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs for releasing of his genuine claim regarding the vehicle in question but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court case titled as Gurmel Singh Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. in civil appeal no.4071 of 2022, date of decision 20.05.2022.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that on receiving the intimation regarding the alleged incident, OPs had appointed an investigator for investigating the matter. OPs had sent letters and their reminders to the complainant requesting him to submit the documents but complainant failed to submit the same and the claim of the complainant had been closed due to non-submission of the documents, vide letter dated 05.11.2019 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9                We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. 

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of insurance policy. It is also admitted that the sum insured in the policy in question is Rs.3,45,424/-.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs, vide letter Ex.OP10/Ex.OP27 dated 05.11.2019 on the ground for non-submission of required documents. Documents sought by the OPs, vide letter Ex.OP1 dated 24.08.2019,  reminderI Ex.OP2/Ex.C6 dated 18.09.2019 and reminderII Ex.OP3/Ex.C7 dated 10.10.2019 reproduced as under:-

1.     Claim form duly filled stamped.

2.     Record copy of letter RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody.

3.     Loan Account Statement.

4.     Non Repossession letter from Bank/Financer.

5.     Original Keys of lost vehicle.

6.     Original Court accepted FIR u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

7.     Statement of insured.

8.     Last user statement.

9.     RC particulars.

10.   100 number call detail.

 

12.           In the letter Ex.C8/ Ex.C10 dated 05.11.2019, OPs have demanded abovesaid documents but in the bottom of the letter Ex.C10 Shri Rohit Sharma in his hand written has demanded only four documents i.e Claim form; Record copy of letter to RTA, Insured statement and last user statement. Meaning, thereby, that complainant had supplied all other documents demanded in the letters and only four documents were pending.  Complainant has placed on file, the copy of claim form Ex.C13, the statement of insured recorded by the OP in he said claim form and there is no relevancy to record the statement of last user. When the complainant has produced the copy of said documents in the Commission then as to why he would not supply the same to the OPs when his personal interest is invoiced. Further, in Gurmel Singh’s case (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “while settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control”.

Hence, keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we found no substance in this contention of the OPs and OPs have taken the baseless pleas only in order to reject/close the genuine claim of the complainant.

13.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

                “It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

14.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OPs while closing the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which is otherwise proved genuine one.

15.          As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle in question is Rs.3,45,424/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the same alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,45,424 /- as insured declared value (IDV) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of closing of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, The complainant is also directed to get all the formalities completed with regard to transfer of vehicle as and when the OPs desire. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.01.2023.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer