Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 544.
Instituted on : 05.11.2018.
Decided on : 25.05.2023
Rakesh son of Sh. Ram Bhagat Kataria resident of village Samchana Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
...........Complainant.
Vs.
Iffco–Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor Shop no.23, Appu Ghar Market, Opp. ADC office, Rohtak through its General Manager/Incharge.
……….Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Yashvir Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-26AY-9997 from the opposite party vide policy no.97005482. The vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 07.01.2017 and opposite party was immediately informed. The matter was reported to the police and admittedly the police authorities have issued a final investigation report as well as the untraced report. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party and submitted all the documents. But the opposite party issued a letter dated 19.09.2018 and informed that the claim has been approved for Rs.335500/- after a deduction of 25% for submission of duplicate keys. This deduction is illegal because at the time of insurance of vehicle, nothing was asked whether the keys were original or duplicate. Now the alleged plea of the opposite party is false and baseless and the opposite party is liable to pay the full claim of Rs.450000/- to the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party to pay the full claim of Rs.450000/- but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.450000/- alongwith interest thereon and also to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that after receipt of intimation of loss, the answering opposite party deputed M/s Bhola & Associates for investigation into the case and collection of documents. On receipt of investigation report and documents, the claim in question was further processed by the company and the respondent company found that there are certain flaws in the claim in question because the insured has failed to provide both original keys of the stolen vehicle. The insured has submitted duplicate keys instead of original keys. Hence the company found that the claim falls under the category of non-standard claims due to violation of policy conditions, under which full sum insured is not payable rather 75% of the claim is payable and accordingly the respondent company vide its letter dated 19.09.2018 approved the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.335500/- being 75% of the IDV further less policy excess as applicable and this letter was duly sent to complainant for compliance of further formalities in the theft claim such as original RC duly freezed/blocked by RTA, Letter of subrogation, Discharge Voucher, Cancelled Cheque, consent letter and Indemnity Bond. The respondent-insurance company further sent the received keys to SIFS India for forensic examination and who has confirmed in report that one key is original made and occasionally used but the use of the key are not in line with the age of the vehicle while the second key is unused without wear and tear mark, further intentional marks are observed on the blade region to manipulate the usage of the key which clearly suggest that both the submitted keys are not belong to the vehicle in question. The insured has not provided any original key of the vehicle which was being used by him before the vehicle stolen which clearly suggests that the key was also lost with the vehicle. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.06.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence on 08.02.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. After the theft, complainant filed a claim with the opposite party. As per written statement filed by the respondent insurance company they have settled the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.335500/- being 75% of IDV of the vehicle i.e.Rs.450000/- after deducting less excess clause and the company further demanded the documents i.e. letter of subrogation, discharge voucher, cancelled cheque, consent letter, indemnity bond and also requested to freeze the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. The deduction has been made on the ground that the complainant has submitted a key with the insurance company and the same was examined through SIFS India for forensic examination and a report has been received from that department and it has been mentioned that one key is original make and the same is occasionally used with few striation marks but the use of the key are not in line with the age of the vehicle while the second key is unused without wear and tear mark, further intentional marks are observed on the blade region to manipulate the usage of the key which clearly suggest that both the submitted keys are not belong to the vehicle in question. Report Ex.R1 is having 15 pages and the result of the examination is mentioned on page no.15. Result of examination: “The keys are not in-line with the age of the vehicle. Also, the key are BELONGS TO THE DIFFERENT LOCK as they are dissimilar through morphological and metrological analysis of the keys(no.of grooves and cutting pattern observed over the blades)”. In view of the aforesaid report, it is clear that the complainant had submitted the duplicate keys with the opposite party and as such opposite party has rightly approved the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis for a sum of Rs.335500/- being 75% of the IDV. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is only liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant.
6 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.335500/-(Rupees three lac thirty five thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Complainant is also directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit letter of subrogation, cancelled cheque, discharge voucher, indemnity bond and application for cancellation of R.C. to the registration authority within 15 days. Opposite party is further directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of submission of documents by the complainant with the opposite party, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged awarded amount from the date of order till its realization.
7. 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:
25.05.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
.......................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
