Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 61.
Instituted on : 25.01.2017.
Decided on : 25.01.2019.
Baljeet Singh, age 50 year, son of Sh. Ram Kishan, Resident of Village Chiri, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi through its Manager.
2 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO-1, 1st Floor, Sector-14, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravi Shankar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63-9722 which was insured with OP No.1 insurance company vide policy No. 1-3HOJRUG-92022352 valid from 16.04.2015 to 15.04.2016 and the IDV of vehicle is Rs.7,50,000/-. On 22.02.2016, during Jat Reservation Agitation, some anti social persons have set on fire the vehicle of complainant in the area of PS City Gohana and the vehicle was completely damaged. After that complainant informed the OP No. 1 regarding this incident and he also lodged an NCR No.21 of 2016 under Section 427 of IPC, Police Station City Gohana. Thereafter, surveyor of the OPs inspected the said vehicle and prepared the estimate of said vehicle. The complainant furnished all required documents as asked by the OPs and applied for insurance claim amount. Complainant also sent a legal notice to the OPs, but the officials of the OPs did not pay any heed. That the act of opposite parties of not disbursing the alleged claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of incident till the date of actual realization and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that after legal process, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs and same was communicated to the insured vide registered AD letter dated 16.03.2016. It is further submitted that on perusal of the report of the surveyor and other documents on record, company has noticed that the surveyor Mr. Sanjeev Chhabra appointed by the OPs has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.4,66,870/-, but he pointed out that fitness was expired on the date of accident and road tax was not paid, hence, the claim was not payable as per the policy terms and conditions and provision of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the claim was rightly repudiated and the OPs are not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. That there is no deficiency of services on the part of the OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.06.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.10.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that at the time of accident, fitness was expired and road tax was not paid. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition no.622 of 2013 titled as Baghel Singh Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd but the same is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in this case it is observed that the incident had taken place during the Reservation Agitation when no vehicle was moving on the road side. At the time of incident, the vehicle in question was standing stationary and the trolley was not attached to the truck and the only truck could not be used for commercial purpose. Hence the question of fitness certificate and road-tax does not arise and the claim has been repudiated on the flimsy grounds. As per the survey report Ex.R3, the surveyor has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.466870/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the alleged claim amount.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party no.1 & 2 shall pay the amount of Rs.466870/-(Rupees four lac sixty six thousand eight hundred and seventy only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.01.2017 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
25.01.2019. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
