Haryana

StateCommission

A/503/2019

LAKHWINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

SIDDHARTH GULATI

28 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       First Appeal No.503 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 22.05.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing:28.11.2022

Date of pronouncement:16.01.2023

 

Lakhwinder Kaur W/o Baljinder Singh R/o Gali No.1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Kaithal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

 2.     Kannu @ Ankur Gupta-officer of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, opposite Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Siddharth Gulati , Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 already given up vide order dated 30.10.2019.

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that complainant was registered owner of heavy goods vehicle NO.HR 43 D/0247, which was insured with OP No.1-Insurance Company through OP NO.2 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Insurance was valid from 11.04.2015 to 10.04.2016. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident  and FIR bearing No.403 dated 28.12.2015 was lodged.  He lodged the claim with OP No.1, but, OP No.1 through OP No.2 pressurized complainant to accept an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- only in lump sum (after illegal deduction of 25% of the IDV) although complainant did not agree with their offer. The complainant requested the OPs to pay whole of the insured amount, but, OPs did not pay any heed. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence this complaint.

2.      Notice issued, OP No.1 filed separate written statement.   OP No.1 submitted that upon receipt of information about vehicle being stolen surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report on 09.01.2016.  As per the claim intimation form, the vehicle got stolen on 25.12.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged on 28.12.2015 i.e. after a gap of three days and intimation of theft was given to the answering OP on 29.12.2015 i.e. after a delay of four days.  It was submitted that  at the time of theft of the vehicle, ignition keys was inside the vehicle. OP No.1 wrote several letters dated 29.01.2016, 23.02.2016, 02.03.2016, 08.03.2016 and 04.04.2016 to the complainant for providing certain documents, but, she failed to produce the same. Thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide registered letter dated 03.07.2018.  Thus there being no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP, the complaint deserved dismissal.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Kaithal has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 01.04.2019, which is as under:-

“Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the  complaint partly and direct the OPs to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.7,00,000) i.e. Rs.5,25,000/- subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and cancellation of ownership of vehicle in question obtained from the concerned Registering authority. Therefore , the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. for defaulted period. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount.

5.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Sidharth Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Yogesh Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondentNo.1. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

6       It is not disputed that during subsistence of the policy, the vehicle got allegedly stolen on 25.12.2015.  It is also true that complainant had got the insurance policy which was to remain in force from 11.04.2015 to 10.04.2016 having sum assured of Rs.7,00,000/-. After intimation of theft, surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report.  The plea of the complainant-appellant was that the amount awarded by the District Commission be enhanced as learned District Commission has awarded only a meagre amount.  Counsel for the appellant has placed on record case law titled Ghyanendra Pratap Singh Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2017) CPJ 540 (NC). Counsel for the respondent has placed on record  case of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled Kanwarjit Singh Kang Vs. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.  & Anr. 2022(3) PLR 475. 

7.      Perusal of EX.R-4 dated 03.07.2018 shows that the claim was repudiated because of violation of condition No.1 and 5 of the policy.   Perusal of the file shows that complainant has taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle and after theft of the vehicle, she sent information about this incident to the insurance company and FIR was also lodged regarding the theft of this vehicle. The complainant has lodged the FIR after three days. The learned District Commission after considering all aspects of the case as to how complainant failed to supply the documents has rightly granted the amount on non standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and cancellation of the ownership of vehicle.  The impugned order dated 01.04.2019 of the District Commission was fully justified and perfectly in accordance with the law.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No occasion for enhancement of compensation is made out. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

8.                Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

9.                A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

16th January, 2023            Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)