Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/37/2019

Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Bura

10 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:31.01.2019. 

                                                                     Date of Decision: 10.10.2019.

 

Dharam Pal s/o Shri Hari Singh, r/o village and Post Office Kirmach, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                            Versus

 

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., C/o HAFED District Office, SCO 19-2, Ground Floor, Part-I, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana, India-133001, through its Branch Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. The Branch Manager/Director/Authorized Signatory, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office Sadan C-1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017.
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Authorized Signatory.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Ajay Bura, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.           

 

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Dharampal against IFFCO Tokio and another, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-07M-5788, Model 2009. He got insured the said vehicle with the OPs vide policy No.68822127 dated 04.1.2017 and paid the premium of Rs.1030/- for the period from 02.1.2017 to 01.1.2018. The said motorcycle was stolen by someone else from outside of State Bank of India, Railway Road, Kurukshetra on 15.2.2017. However, the motorcycle was duly locked at the time of incident. He immediately given intimation to the police and lodged an FIR No.152 dated 19.2.2017 in PS City Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra u/s 379 of IPC. Later on the concerned police submitted the untrace report before the Court of Ms. Natasha Sharma, learned CJM, Kurukshetra stated that the said motorcycle could not found/traced. After submission of the untrace report, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs for processing the claim, but the OPs did not pay the claim amount despite repeated requests. He served a legal notice to the OPs through his counsel Shri Ajay Bura, Advocate, which was duly received by the OPs, but despite that, the OPs neither gave reply to the said legal notice nor paid the claim amount till today. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. On receiving the intimation, from the insured/owner regarding theft loss of the motorcycle in question, the OPs appointed investigator Shri R.N. Sharma for investigate the matter, who submitted his report dated 04.3.2017. In order to process the claim, the OPs wrote letter dated 24.4.2017 requesting the complainant to provide record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particular in safe custody, untrace report certified by SHO/Police Station, proof of timely intimation to police and explanation on reason for delay in intimation of claim to the company, but the insured has not complied the same. Thereafter, 1^st reminder dated 08.5.2017, 2^nd reminder dated 17.5.2017 and 3^rd reminder dated 25.5.2017 was also sent to the insured to provide the same, but he failed to do so. The complainant himself is at fault as the vehicle was stolen on 15.2.2017 and FIR was lodged on 19.2.2017 i.e. after 4 days. The OPs were intimated on 22.2.2017 i.e. after a delay of 7 days of the alleged theft. This constitutes serious breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Ultimately, the OPs closed the claim of the complainant vide Closure letter dated 23.8.2017. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OPs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure C+-1 alongwith documents Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is the registered owner of Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-07M-5788 and the same was got insured with the OPs for the period from 02.1.2017 to 01.1.2018. The said motorcycle was stolen by someone else from outside of State Bank of India, Railway Road, Kurukshetra on 15.2.2017 and in this regard, the complainant lodged an FIR No.152 dated 19.2.2017 in PS City Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra u/s 379 of IPC. Later on, the concerned police submitted the untrace report before the Court of learned CJM, Kurukshetra. He further argued that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs for processing the claim, but the OPs did not pay the claim amount despite repeated requests. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in services.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that on receiving the intimation regarding theft loss of the motorcycle, the OPs appointed investigator to investigate the matter, who submitted his report dated 04.3.2017. He further argued that the OPs wrote letter dated 24.4.2017 and thereafter three reminders on dated 08.5.2017, 17.5.2017 and 25.5.2017 respectively, requesting the complainant to provide the certain documents, but he failed to provide the same. The vehicle was stolen on 15.2.2017, whereas FIR was lodged on 19.2.2017 i.e. after 4 days and intimation to the OPs was given on 22.2.2017 i.e. after a delay of 7 days of the alleged theft. This constitutes serious breach of terms & conditions of the insurance policy and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

8.             From the perusal of policy document dated 04.1.2017 (Annexure C-2/Ex.R-6), it is evident that the motorcycle in question was duly insured with the OPs for a sum assured of Rs.18,000/- for the period from 02.1.2017 to 01.1.2018. While going through the FIR dated 19.2.2017 (Annexure C-3), it is revealed that the said motorcycle was stolen on 15.2.2017 from the outside of State Bank of India, Railway Road, Kurukshetra. However, the OPs vide letter dated 23.8.2017 (Annexure R-5) treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” on the ground of non-submission of Untrace Report & copy of letter to RTA as well as explanation for delay in lodging the FIR and delay in giving the intimation to the OPs from the date of theft. However, perusal of case file shows that Untrace Report and letter written by the complainant to the RTA, are duly produced on the case file by the complainant as Annexure C-6 and Annexure C-7 respectively. Moreover, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has also pleaded that the complainant has submitted the above-said documents with the OPs. So far as the other reason for refusing to pay the claim to the complainant taken by the OPs in letter dated 23.8.2017 (Ex.R-5)  i.e. delay in lodging the FIR and delay in intimation to the OPs, is concerned; in this regard, we can rely on the case law titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another, Vol IV 2017 CPJ-10 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that condition regarding delay shall not be shelter to repudiate insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. Even the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has issued guidelines to the insurance companies that “The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimating or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances”. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and instructions of IRDA, it would not be fair and reasonable on the part of the OPs to refuse to pay the genuine claim of the complainant merely on the ground of delay in intimation as well as delay in lodging the FIR. Since the motorcycle in question was insured for Rs.18,000/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount alongwith the compensation and litigation expenses, subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and transfer the ownership of vehicle in question in the name of OPs by the complainant.

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.18,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and         physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:10.10.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.