Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 573.
Instituted on : 04.10.2017.
Decided on : 15.05.2019.
Raj Kumar son of Sh. Mahender Singh, age 45 years, R/o Village Kharak Kalan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through Division Manager/Authorized Signatory, Branch Office, IFFCO Tower, Plot No. 3, Sector-29, Gurgaon (Haryana).
2 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019, through its Manager.
3 Alok Gupta, Head of Department of IFFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
4 Parkash Gupta Manager, IFFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
5 IFFCO Tokio Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Office at Sector-14, HUDA, Rohtak(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, 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 i.e. Liva Toyota bearing registration No. HR-16M-3300 which was insured from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 vide policy No. TIT-91289624 which was valid from 20.09.2014 to 19.09.2015 for IDV of Rs.4,13,172/- and the complainant paid Rs.14,347/- as premium. On 31.01.2015, the vehicle in question met with an accident in the area of PS Sadar, Fatehabad and the vehicle was completely damaged. The complainant lodged an FIR No. 68 dated 02.02.2015, under Section 279 and 337 of IPC, PS Sadar Fatehabad. After that on the very next day, complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 about the accident. Thereafter, surveyor of the opposite parties inspected the said vehicle. The complainant submitted all relevant documents to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as demanded by the opposite parties. The complainant made requests to the opposite parties so many times, but opposite parties did not pay any heed. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver name as mentioned in the claim form is Raj Kumar, whereas in the FIR it is mentioned as Pardeep and the license of both the drivers are not issued on smart card. That on 09.03.2016, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties regarding the claim, but to no effect. 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.4,13,172/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of incident till the date of actual realization and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.2200/- + Rs.5500/- as typing and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply submitted that as per report submitted by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, the loss for Rs. 3,52,172/- subject to payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and submission of the required documents. It is further submitted that the name of the driver as mentioned in the claim form is Raj Kumar, whereas in the FIR it is mentioned as Pardeep, hence there is misrepresentation of facts and a violation by the complainant. Moreover, both the driving license’s are issued by Transport Authority, Nagaland and not issued on Smart Card. As per Public Information Notioce of the Transport Commissioner Nagaland on 01.08.2014, it is mandatory required that the driving license must be on Smart Card through the national software “SARATHI” and any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on booklet is not genuine. Both the smart card are not on Smart Card and be treated as cancelled. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite parties.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.C-1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C48 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.09.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.02.2019.
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 regarding the plea taken by the opposite parties of territorial jurisdiction, we have observed that as per survey report Ex.R1, in column no.7, the place of survey is mentioned as M/s Satyam Toyota, Rohtak, and as per claim form Ex.R6, the place of parking of vehicle is also M/s Satyam Toyota, Rohtak. Hence the partly cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. As such this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Regarding issuance of both the driving license’s on Smart Card, no document has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove that alleged notification/Public Information was published in any Newspaper for the general public. The complainant Raj Kumar was having a chance to convert his D.L. into Smart Card at the time of renewal i.e. in the year 2027 and the licence of Pardeep Kumar was also to be renewed in the year 2026 whereas the accident had taken place on 31.01.2015 i.e. before the date of renewal. Hence it is not proved that the both the D.Ls’ were invalid. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R1 amounting to Rs.352172/- alongwith interest etc.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.352172/-(Rupees three lac fifty two thousand one hundred seventy two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.10.2017 till its realisation and also award a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant maximum 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:
15.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
