Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 28.
Instituted on : 19.01.2018.
Decided on : 09.10.2019.
Anil age 30 years, s/o Shri Ram Mehar Resident of VPO: Ghilour Kalan, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 6330, 2nd Floor above Dena Bank Panjabi Mohalla, Ambala(Haryana)133001 Through its Manager.
- HDFC Bank, 401-402, Delhi Road, Rohtak(Haryana)-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dharmender Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant is registered owner of vehicle LMV Car Fox Wagon Vento Regd. no.HR12R-2838, Model-2011 and the same was insured with respondent no.1 vide policy no.99445800 from 10.08.2016 to 09.08.2017 and the vehicle in question is also financed from opposite party No.2. That the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 06.10.2016 when it was being driven by the uncle of complainant named Satbir and one person was travelling with him. That the left front tyre of the vehicle burst, vehicle became uncontrolled and struck with a tree and caused the incident and the vehicle engine and complete car with original R.C. catch fire. That after the incident, the driver of the vehicle informed the police as well as to fire brigade, the police came at the spot. But nobody was injured and there was no any third party loss and injured in this accident. That complainant informed the opposite party No.1 about the incident and a case D.D.No.026 dated 14.10.2016 was registered by Driver in P.S.Jhajjar. That vehicle was insured vide insurance policy No.99445800 from 10.08.2016 to 09.08.2017 and financed from respondent no.2. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim has not been settled by the opposite parties. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.650000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of actual realization and Rs.200000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that company deputed Sh. Sunny Goel, Surveyor and loss Assessor, investigator and as per detailed investigation report, it was observed that the fire was not on account of accidental initiation of fire after it hit a nearby tree on the side of road, but loss was on account of initiation of fire in stationary car at an isolated location during odd hours by placing heaps of scrap such as paper, cotton, wood, cardboard plastic etc. inside and outside the car for initiating and setting fire after parking the car adjacent to the tree on the road side and the fire thus ignited was allowed to spread to the entire vehicle to manage an accidental fire incident. Fire was not on account of any electrical mechanical or combustion related failures. Hence the claim was rightly repudiated due to violation of policy terms and conditions. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant Anil has obtained a financial loan for a vehicle i.e. Used Car Loan i.e. volkswagan Vento of Rs.404462/- which was to be reimbursed by the complainant/borrower in 36 monthly installments of Rs.13873/-. As per the foreclosure statement of the aforesaid loan agreement, an amount of Rs.122073.92 as on 09.05.2018 is outstanding towards the complainant and the complainant is under legal obligation to pay the aforesaid amount of loan. The answering respondent has no role to play in the settlement of the insurance claim. The insurance claim was to be dealt by the respondent no.1 only. The complainant is not entitled to any relief from the answering respondent. The complaint qua the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed. However, if the complainant is found to be entitled to any claim from the respondent no.1, in that case the amount of the claim ordered to be paid to the answering respondent, so that the same can be deposited in the loan account of complainant.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW7 and closed his evidence on dated 11.09.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.03.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/2 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.04.2019
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter Ex.R2 on the ground that the vehicle was set on fire in stationary condition at an isolated location and the fire thus ignited was allowed to spread to the entire vehicle to manage an accidental fire incident. To prove this fact, opposite party has placed on record copy of forensic investigation report Ex.R1/1. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record copy of DD report Ex.CW2 as per which, the accident had taken place due to bursting of tyre and imbalance of vehicle, due to which car struck against a tree and caught fire. After going through the report Ex.R1/1, it is observed that the alleged report is not supported with the affidavit of eye witness. Moreover, the accident had taken place on 06.10.2016 and as per report Ex.R1/1, the opposite party has requested the Chairman Truth Labs vide email dated 18.10.2017 to carry out forensic investigation i.e. after one year of accident and the alleged lab had submitted its report on dated 09 March 2018 i.e. after about 1½ years of accident, which itself proves that after a gap of one and half year of accident, the contents of damaged car cannot be found the same. Moreover, no spot survey report of the vehicle in question has been placed on record by the opposite party. Hence the investigation report Ex.R1/1 placed on record is false and fabricated and cannot be relied upon. Regarding the delayed intimation of 27 days to the insurance company, we have placed upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle. As per affidavit Ex.RW2/A of opposite party No.2, it is submitted that during the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant has deposited the amount of installments and cleared his loan liability towards the bank.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs.650000/-(Rupees six lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.01.2018 till its actual realization and shall also pay an amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. 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:
09.10.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
