Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/53/2021

Milan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Sharma

20 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint Case No. : 53 of 2021

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 26.02.2021

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 20.09.2024

 

Milan Singh son of Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o village Golagarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., registered office at IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its authorized signatory.

...Opposite party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of car TATA Bolt XT bearing registration no.HR-16R-6999 got it insured from OP for a period from 27.03.2018 to 26.03.2019 for an IDV of Rs.5,80,000/-.  It is stated that the vehicle was stolen on 15.03.2019 from Pitampura, Rama Market, Delhi and FIR No.009349 dated 15.03.2019 was registered in this regard at P.S. Rani Bagh, Outer District. Later on the vehicle was recovered but it was in total damaged condition. Complainant filed claim with OPs, who required copy of previous  policy of the vehicle vide letter dated 05.02.2020, complainant replied the same and also submitted all requisite documents viz. copy of FIR, R.C. of the vehicle, covernote of the policy etc., but despite that, OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 20.03.2020. Hence the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, seeking directions against them to pay the insured amount of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.5,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of FIR till actual payment.  Further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. besides Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it from 27.03.2018 to 26.03.2019. On 15.03.2019, complainant reported loss of his vehicle. The vehicle was financed with Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and the OP collected photographs of the vehicle in question from the said finance company and matched with the vehicle while insuring the vehicle and found that vehicle bearing no.HR-16R-6999 produced for procuring insurance and produced before finance company for valuation were different. It is submitted that as per admission of the complainant, the vehicle in question was recovered thus there is no question arisen for settlement of theft claim. Further, as per complainant, the vehicle recovered in damaged condition but the complainant neither informed about the said recovery of vehicle nor filed any claim for survey of the vehicle  and settlement of own damaged loss if any to the vehicle. Hence, the claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20.03.2020.  As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant in evidence tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Hardeep Singh, Deputy General Manager, of OP company as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-8 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments submitted on behalf of OP.

6.                 At the outset, we have perused the repudiation letter dated 20.03.2020 (Ex. OP-4) which says that on receipt of report from investigator M/s Triple Tracer & Investigation; and particulars and photographs of the vehicle from financer M/s Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. taken at the time of valuation and finance of the vehicle as well as taken by OP insurance company while insuring the vehicle in question, it was found that vehicle bearing no. HR-16R-6999 produced for procuring insurance and vehicle bearing no.HR-16R- procured for valuation were different qua wheel cover & alloy wheels, manufacturer logo, camera, wiper, antenna and odometer. Besides this, arguments of learned counsel for OP is that after receipt of the vehicle, complainant never informed about recovery of the vehicle and he also did not  lodge any claim for damage(s) in the vehicle. Had the complainant informed the OP insurance company about recovery of the vehicle, it would have got surveyed the vehicle for proper loss assessment and also would have conducted investigations from other various angles. It is further argued that through the present complaint, complainant is seeking IDV of the vehicle Rs.5,80,000/- which too in the circumstances when OP insurance company has no information about recovery of the vehicle and its condition. Thus learned counsel for OP has argued that no claim is payable at the end of OP insurance company and argued for dismissal of the complaint with heavy exemplary costs. 

7.                 From the record and pleadings of the parties, it is evident that complainant had lodged theft claim of the vehicle in question with the OP insurance company but there is no record on file which could show that after recovery of the vehicle, complainant had informed the OP. Such, lapse on the part of complainant goes against him and creates doubt on his credibility. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that the vehicle was recovered in the total damaged condition but there is no report/photographs on file to prove that to what extent the vehicle was damaged whereas it was incumbent upon the complainant as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. Complainant has also failed to apprise this Commission, the present condition of the vehicle which also goes against the complainant.

8.                 In such a situation, we do not see and deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OP. Thus we are not inclined to accept the complaint rather it is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:20.09.2024.