Haryana

Panchkula

50RB/2015

PRAMOD KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO-TOKIO GENRAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG.

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	50 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	16.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	10.09.2015

Sh.Pramod Kumar S/o Sh.Rama Shankar Mishra, R/o (1) H.No.988/10, Badal Colony, Zirakpur. (2) H.No.921, Sector-19, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       The General Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office IFFCO Sadan, C1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through General Manager/Incharge, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi.

2.       The Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B & C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through Manager/Authorized Signatory, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., ITGI Strategic Business, MuskarteRaho, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B & C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Kunal Garg, Advocate, for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Initially, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum which was dismissed as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission as first appeal No.346 of 2015 vide which the appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to this Forum to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
2. Pramod Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he insured his three wheeler vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) bearing registration No.HR-68A-4531 with the Ops. The Ops renewed the insurance policy of three wheeler vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) for Rs.1,60,000/- vide cover note No.73444918 dated 05.10.2012 which was valid for the period from 28.09.2012 to 27.09.2013 midnight with a premium of Rs.4620.50. On 20.04.2013 at 4.00 PM, the complainant parked his vehicle at the Mansa Devi, V.I.P. parking backside of vita booth which was found missing at night at 11.00 PM. The complainant lodged the FIR No.31 dated 24.04.2013 u/s 379 of IPC in P.S. Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. On 26.04.2013, the complainant orally intimated to the Ops and on 02.07.2013, the investigator (Sonu Bhola) of the Ops sent a letter to the complainant to provide the relevant documents. On 16.07.2014, the complainant has received the copy of untraced report vide order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the court which was submitted to the Ops on 17.07.2014 alongwith other documents i.e. copy of permit, copy of permission by Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula, copy of FIR, copy of letter to RTA, Panchkula, copy of letter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula about the untraced report and copy of request letter by the complainant to the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops many times who stated every time that the cheque has been prepared and the same would be issued soon but the cheque has not been issued so far. The complainant sent a legal notice to the Ops on 12.01.2015 and requested to make the payment within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint.
3. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant was required to submit all the relevant documents as prescribed in the Motor Claim Form (Annexure R-1) in order to process his claim but the complainant has not submitted the same despite issuing many reminders (Annexure R-2 to R-6). It is submitted that theft took place on 20.04.2013 and intimation of the same was given to the police on 24.04.2013. It is submitted that the Ops was intimated about the theft on 29.06.2013 violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is denied that on 26.04.2013, the complainant had orally intimated the Ops regarding the theft and the FIR.  It is submitted that the investigator, deputed by the Ops, sent a letter dated 02.07.2013 to the complainant to provide the requisite documents but the complainant did not submit the requisite documents to the Ops. It is submitted that the complainant has submitted certain documents alongwith letter dated 17.07.2014 but has not submitted the original purchase invoice, original set of key and record copy of letter to RTA. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Undisputedly, the vehicle (PIAGGIO-APE CITY) of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-68-A-4531 was insured which was renewed by the Ops vide cover note No.73444918 dated 05.10.2012 which was valid from 28.09.2012 to 27.09.2013 midnight for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Annexure C-1) with a premium of Rs.4620.50. On 20.04.2013, the vehicle of the complainant was theft at Mansa Devi, V.I.P parking backside of vita booth. FIR No.31 (Annexure C-2) dated 24.04.2013 u/s 379 of IPC was lodged in P.S. Mansa Devi Complex at Panchkula. Intimation about theft was also sent to the Ops on 26.04.2013. On 02.07.2013, the investigator of Ops demanded some relevant documents (Annexure C-3) and the complainant sent the documents i.e. copy of untraced report (Annexure C-4), copy of permit, copy of permission by Regional Transport Authority Panchkula (Annexure C-5), copy of FIR, copy of letter to RTA Panchkula (Annexure C-7), copy of letter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Panchkula (Annexure C-8) on 17.07.2014 but the Ops did not settle the claim of the complainant.
7. The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Ops is that the accident took place on 20.04.2013 and the complainant intimated the police on 24.04.2013 after delay of 4 days and intimation was given to the Ops on 29.06.2013 in gross violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy which clearly states that the notice shall be given in writing to the Ops immediately upon occurrence of any loss. The complainant was required to submit all the relevant documents in order to process his claim. However, despite number of reminders, the complainant has not submitted to the Ops the original purchase invoice, original set of keys and record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle’s particulars in safe custody. This Forum does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the Ops. Undisputedly, the Ops insured the vehicle of complainant which was stolen. FIR dated 24.04.2013 was also lodged. The surveyor appointed by the Ops who demanded some documents from the complainant which were sent by him. The Ops demanded more documents vide reminder dated 16.10.2013 (Annexure R-2), 24.01.2014 (Annexure R-3), 10.02.2014 (Annexure R-4), 18.03.2014 (Annexure R-5) and 09.09.2014 (Annexure R-6) from time to time. After going through the reminders dated 16.10.2013, 24.01.2014, 10.02.2014, 18.03.2014 and 09.09.2014, it reveals that the complainant had also submitted the documents as demanded by the Ops as in reminder dated 09.09.2014, the Ops demanded only three documents i.e. original purchase invoice, original set of key and record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody whereas the complainant has already sent all the documents to the Ops vide his letter dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure C-9). After 09.09.2014, the Ops did not send any letter or reminder to the complainant for submitting any other documents. However, till date the Ops did not settle or repudiate the claim of the complainant which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that it was a genuine claim of the complainant. Our own Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as  National Insurance Company and other vs. Ajay Mehra decided on 04.04.2014 has held as under:-

“The instant case is fully covered by the decision rendered by this Commission in Rajesh Kumar’s case (supra). The evidence available on the record establishes that it is a genuine claim of the respondent-complainant. F.I.R. No.792 (Ex.P-6) is the best piece of evidence to prove the theft of respondent’s motorcycle. Merely, that the appellant was not informed immediately after the vehicle was stolen and delay of three days in recording F.I.R. and delay of eleven days in giving information to the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be the sole ground for denying respondent’s claim.”

9. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble State Commission cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be succeeded and the same is allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-
   1. To make the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- Insured Declared Value alongwith interest @ 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint.
   2. To pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
   3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
10. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

10.09.2015    S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                      MEMBER                      MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

         

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT