Haryana

Kurukshetra

103/2018

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Aggarwal

21 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 103 of 2018.

Date of instt. 10.05.2018. 

                                                                      Date of Decision: 21.06.2019.

 

Satpal son of Shri Budhu Singh, resident of House No.445, Sector-7, Urban Estate Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco House, III Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019 through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (Associated with Peerless General Company) Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

 

3. Balwinder Singh, Insurance Agent of the Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Arya Samaj Market, near Dr. Virk Hospital, Sector-17, Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.            

 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.

 OP no.3 was not summoned being not necessary party.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satpal against Iffco Tokio General Insurance and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant is registered owner of motor cycle bearing No. HR-07N-6127. The complainant got insured his said motor cycle from ops no.1 and 2 through op no.3. It is further averred that on 29.12.2013 at about 8.30 p.m., some unknown person had stolen the motor cycle of complainant from outside of the main gate of his house and an intimation in this regard was given to the police as well as to the insurance company immediately. The complainant tried his best to search out the motorcycle but all in vain. It is further averred that police registered FIR No.5 dated 3.1.2014 in P.S. City Thanesar. That after receipt of intimation from the complainant, the op no.2 had deputed their Investigator who inquired into the matter and confirmed/ verified the instance mentioned in the FIR. After that investigator had demanded certain requisite documents from the complainant. All the documents were supplied by the complainant to the insurance company and the theft claim was lodged with the ops. It is further averred that ops vide letter dated 10.9.2014 directed the complainant to submit certain documents which were also submitted but the insurance company has not settled the claim of complainant and wrote a letter on 20.8.2016 and alleged that documents are incomplete and further requested to give more documents and these documents are not relevant for the settlement of claim and same have been intentionally demanded. That the aforesaid letter dated 20.8.2016 is totally illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of complainant and the insurance company has closed the theft claim on the lame excuse. That the act and conduct on the part of ops amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. On receiving intimation from insured/ owner regarding loss of motor cycle, the answering op immediately appointed investigator Sh. R.N. Sharma to investigate into the matter. The said investigator met with the complainant and requested him to provide requisitioned documents for processing the claim of complainant and submitted his investigation report to the answering op company. Thereafter, the complainant was requested number of times vide letters dated 9.7.2014, 6.9.2014, 18.9.2014 and 19.1.2015 for providing documents i.e. record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody, loan statement and non repossession letter from bank/ financer, loan termination letter from bank/ financer, original purchase invoice, 2^nd key of lost vehicle, original court accepted final report and explanation for delay in FIR/ proof of timely intimation to the police. It is further submitted that inspite of repeated reminders, the complainant has not given the requested documents and was thus finally informed vide letter dated 19.1.2015 about closer of his claim for non compliance as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that complainant later on submitted the untraced report of the vehicle but complete documents were not submitted and the company asked to the complainant to submit pending documents vide letter dated 20.8.2016 but till date insured/ complainant has not submitted the requisitioned documents to the answering op. It is further averred that complainant himself is at fault as the vehicle was stolen on 29.12.2013 and there is five days delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant lodged the FIR on 3.1.2014. There is delay in intimation to company also. The complainant intimated to the company on 16.5.2014 after very crucial delay of about 137-138 days. The delay intimation to company also admitted by the complainant in his written statement given to the investigator. The delay to the company as well as to concerned police authorities has prejudiced possibilities of recovery of the vehicle. This constitutes serious breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any loss and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Moreover, complainant has not taken reasonable care to protect the vehicle from loss. As per investigation report, it has come on record that complainant has provided only one key of stolen vehicle. The complainant has failed to provide second original key of stolen vehicle and the complainant has violated the condition no.1 and 4 of the policy. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             Since op no.3 was mere an agent of ops no.1 and 2 he was not summoned.

5.             The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

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

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that opposite parties have avoided payment on false grounds of non submission of documents whereas the documents demanded by the ops were duly submitted to the ops for settlement of his claim and the ops have wrongly and arbitrarily withheld the genuine claim of the complainant and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has contended that complainant has not submitted the required documents despite various letters and that there is delay of information about the theft of motor cycle to the police as well as to the ops. He has further contended that moreover, the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as theft took place on 29.12.2013 and present complaint has been filed on 10.5.2018 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

10.            From the copy of policy schedule placed on file by complainant Ex.C3, it is evident that motor cycle in question of the complainant of the model 2009 was insured with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for the period 16.6.2013 to 15.6.2014 for the insured amount of Rs.23,125/- and the ops no.1 and 2 charged the premium of Rs.791.62/- from the complainant. From the copy of FIR dated 3.1.2014 Ex.C2, it is evident that motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 29.12.2013 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy in question. The claim of the complainant has not been paid on account of non submission of the documents as mentioned above, but the documents demanded by the ops no.1 and 2 in letter dated 20.8.2016 are not relevant for the settlement of the claim. Moreover, as per complainant he has already submitted all the documents which were demanded by the surveyor of the ops. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insurance CA No.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 has held as under:-

“It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.

 

11.            The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In so far as contention of learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 that present complaint is barred by limitation is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the ops vide their letter dated 20.8.2016 have demanded unnecessary documents from the complainant despite submission of relevant documents with their surveyor and as such the cause of action arose to the complainant from 20.8.2016 and present complaint has been filed on 10.5.2018 i.e. within two years and is not barred by limitation. So, we are of the considered view that ops no.1 and 2 are deficient in service in not paying the genuine claim of the complainant.

12.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the insured amount of Rs.23,125/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. However, the complainant will have to submit copy of NOC of the finance company to the ops no.1 and 2 as per his statement made today. We further direct the ops No.1 & 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant. We also direct the ops no.1 & 2 to donate/plant two trees in the premises of this Consumer Forum. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.           

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 21.06.2019.                                                  (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.