CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.276/2009
SH. AJAY BHOLA
C-23, 2ND FLOOR, VISHAL ENCLAVE,
RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI-110027
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
IIFCO HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR,
34, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:07.08.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The complainant Shri Ajay Bhola has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against IIFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., OP herein, alleging that the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing no.DL 5C R 0019 make general motors, model-Opel vectra, engine no.83247, chassis no.61335 with the OP, through Policy no.37174753, valid from 26.6.2007 to 25.6.2008. It is submitted that the complainant had bought this second hand car from Mr. Sandeep Gulia on 5.10.2007 and also got insurance policy transferred on 26.10.2007 and hence with effect from 26.10.2007 the interest of the policy was transferred in the name of the complainant. It is submitted that unfortunately on 11.1.2008, when the complainant went to watch the movie at Satyam cinema district centre Janakpuri at about 9.30 pm and had parked his car in the parking and also received a parking receipt from the attendant, but at about 1 am. When the complainant returned from the picture hall and reached the parking the said vehicle was not there and the parking attendant was also not there who had issued the parking receipt. The complainant was thus constrained to lodge an FIR bearing no.11/2008 in the Police station Janakpuri regarding theft of the said car.
On 26.9.2008, the I.O. of the said Police station filed the untraced final report before the concerned M.M. Rohini Courts, Delhi in which it is clearly mentioned that on the lines of averments made in the final report that the present case was registered and despite efforts made neither the accused could be arrested nor the stolen vehicle could be traced out. It is further submitted that the complainant has made several references through different mode of communication before the OP company but instead of providing insurance claim, the OP lingered on the issues on one pretext or the other; and rather has been asking vague questions to the complainant. It is further submitted that the legal parameters have been carefully fulfilled by the complainant but the OP has not finalized the claim even after a long time which shows ill intention of the OP and its officials. The complainant in his prayer has sought directions to the OP, to clear the insurance claim of the insured vehicle no.DL 5CR 0019 in favour of the complainant and also pass an award of Rs.2,17,500/- as damages in favour of the complainant, along with costs;
The OP in its written statement to the complaint, has replied that the complainant is in breach of policy conditions which are conditions precedent to liability of the insurer. It is submitted that the complainant has not filed the policy no.37174753, and that it is wrong for the complainant to say that the letter dated 22.1.2009 of the investigators M/s Vikas Kumar & Associates, contains any vague questions. The investigators have sought clarifications on the inconsistent statements and the documents provided in support of the claim. The complainant has deliberately avoided to provide the required information and has committed breach of conditions. It is submitted that the OP referred to Investigator’s report, particularly, its concluding portion and as per the conclusion, it has been observed that Sandeep Gulia is the same person who along with his cousin Neeraj Malik and insured Ajay Bhola, purchase the obsolete model vehicles as well as the salvage of the vehicles and they in connivance with some insurance agents, managed to get the insurance of those vehicle at a very high IDV and thereafter lodged the claim with insurers for the Total Loss. This complainant had purchased the salvage of the car in question from IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., and thus the theft of the subject vehicle seems to be doubtful because there are contradictions among the statement of the insured with regard to the place of parking of the said vehicle and name of the cinema halls for watching the movie.
The complainant has filed replication to the WS of the OP, and submitted that the contents of the WS are wrong and denied in entirety, and that the OP has only re-engaged different surveyors and investigators one after the other only in order to delay the release of the genuine claim as made by the complainant. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the FIR dated 12.1.2008 u/s 406 IPC registered with PS Janakpuri, New Delhi. The complainant has denied the objections raised on the claim by the OP, and has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his complaint.
Parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits. Parties have also filed their written arguments, and addressed oral arguments as well. Their arguments also repeat the same story mentioned in the complaint, and similar facts as mentioned in the written statement by the OP. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has clarified and submitted that at one place due to inadvertence the complainant has written SATYAM Cinema in place of JANAK Cinema but the place and time of theft has been correctly mentioned in both the documents. The complainant claims Rs.10,80,000/- towards cost of the insured vehicle alleged to have been stolen and Rs.2,17,500/- towards other damages as mentioned by him in para 7 of the complaint. The OP has submitted that the complainant insured had a duty to provide the information and assistance which the OP had required and requested for, but the complainant has avoided to provide the said information and thus has committed breach of condition intentionally and thus cannot make a claim. For this reason only by way of letter dated 12.8.2009, and finally on 19.5.2010, the claim is repudiated by the OP.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The case of the complainant is that on 11.01.2008 he visited at Satyam Cinema, District Centre Janakpuri for watching move at 9.30 pm and parked his car in the paid parking lot just opposite to McDonald restaurant at District Centre Janakpuri and at 1.00 am when the show was over, he came to collect his car and he found that neither the parking attendant nor the car was parked there. Thereafter he lodged a complaint at Police Station Janakpuri and for that FIR was recorded. In the FIR, the complainant has stated that he has parked the car in the parking and the parking attendant issued the receipt. It is nowhere stated in the FIR that the car was parked at District Centre, Janakpuri just opposite McDonald restaurant.
M/s Vikas Kumar and Associates were appointed investigator. Initially they have written a letter dated 22.01.2009 to the complainant drawing his attention to the fact that the parking ticket provided by the complainant was not of that parking lot which is stated by the complainant. The complainant has given different plea that in fact he inadvertently stated that he went to watch the movie at Satyam cinema whereas he went to Janak Cinema.
Thereafter another investigator M/s Bhola and Associates was appointed. They have carried out a detailed investigation. As per their investigation, the annual income of the complainant was Rs.1,20,000/- whereas the car was purchased for a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- and the entire amount was given in cash. The car was insured for IDV of Rs.10,80,000/-. In fact the investigator has written various letters to the complainant i.e. letters dated 28.04.2009, 11.05.2009 and 21.05.2009 wherein the investigator has required the complainant to provide bank statement to show withdrawal of the amount of Rs.9,80,000/-; and to furnish his income tax return to ascertain his income. But the complainant has not admitted that the information was sought for. Such information was very much required because the investigator has specifically concluded that it has been observed that “Sandeep Gulia is the same person who along with his cousin Neeraj Malik and insured Ajay Bhola, purchase the obsolete model vehicles as well as the salvage of the vehicles and they in connivance with some insurance agents, managed to get the insurance of those vehicle at a very high IDV and thereafter lodged the claim with insurers for the Total Loss. This complainant had purchased the salvage of the car in question from IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., and thus the theft of the subject vehicle seems to be doubtful because there are contradictions among the statement of the insured with regard to the place of parking of the said vehicle and name of the cinema halls for watching the movie.” The Investigator also found that there was no McDonal restaurant at nearby to Janak Cinema.
Since a doubt has been created in the entire story of the complainant, the investigator was justified in seeking the information but it was not furnished. There was a clear violation of clause No.8 of the terms and conditions of the policy which is reproduced as under:-
“The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.”
In the reply, it is also stated that there is a violation of clause No.1 of the policy which is reproduced as under:-
“Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the Company shall require …..”
It is useful to refer to the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane – date of decision 09.12.2009 – In that case there was a delay of 9 days in reporting the matter to Insurance which was considered to be the violation of condition No.1 of the policy and repudiation was held to proper.
The complainant in the entire complaint has nowhere stated that as to when he has informed OP about the theft of the car. However, in its written statement OP stated that the complainant has already intimated about the theft vide letter dated 22.01.2008 which is enclosed at page 13 of OP reply. Admittedly the theft has taken place on 11.01.2008 whereas intimation was given on 22.01.2008 i.e. after 11 days. There is no explanation as to why the intimation was given after 11 days. In the light of the allegations made in the reply and also in view of the report of the investigator, this delay of 11 days is very fatal. OP was deprived of opportunity to investigate the matter immediately.
As already held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane (supra), this delay of 11 days is fatal. In fact no explanation was given by the complainant as to why he f reported the matter after 11 days.
The Investigator specifically stated that Mr. Sandeep Gulia is the same person who alongwith his cousin Neeraj Malik and insured Ajay Bhola, purchased the obsolete model vehicles as well as the salvage of the vehicles and they in connivance with some insurance agents, managed to get the insurance of those vehicle at a very high IDV and thereafter lodged the claim.
It is significant to note that annual income of the complainant is Rs.1,20,000/- and he has purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- in cash without disclosing how he arranged the money and when inforamtionw as sought by the investigator, it was not provided.
Under these circumstances, informing OP about theft of the vehicle after 11 days is very fatal and also there is clear cut violation of clause 8 as information sought by the investigator was not furnished. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
