Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 70/2017
Sh. Shyam Veer Tyagi s/o Sh. Bhudat Tyagi
R/o House No. 495 B, Gali No.7,
Ashok Mohala, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 ...Complainant
Versus
OP1-M/s IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Office at:C-1, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi
OP2-Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Puran Chand
R/o RZ H-18, NCL Colony,
Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060 ...Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 07.03.2017
Date of Order: 13.09.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Vyas Muni Rai
ORDER
1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Shyam Veer Tyagi (in short ‘the complainant’) against M/s IFFCO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘in short OP1’) and Sh. Anil Kumar, broker (‘in short OP2’) under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
1.2. Aggrieved by the actions of OPs, this complaint has been filed. The complainant purchased Skoda Car bearing registration no. DL-6CJ-6486 through OP No. 2 and said vehicle was insured with OP1 and date of commencement of the insurance policy bearing no. 91747332 was w.e.f. 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016 for I.D.V. of Rs. 3,51,000/- against premium of Rs. 23,900.57/-.
1.3. On 21.11. 2015 while the complainant was driving the vehicle; a cow suddenly came tried of the vehicle on the road near Max Ford School, Rohini, Sector-23. The complainant in effort to save the cow, however, the wheels of the vehicle touched the divider of the road; car stopped immediately and was unable to start. Thereafter, the complainant parked the vehicle on the road with the help of other persons and started searching for crane to take the car at the service centre for repair. The complainant’s efforts unsuccess to search crane and having no other option, he left the vehicle on the record with intention to get the issue resolved in the morning as it was already 12:23 am at night.
1.4. On next day i.e. on 23.11.2015, the complainant reached at the spot and found vehicle parked nearby road. The complainant was shocked to see fire in the vehicle. The complainant dialed at 100 no. to lodge a complaint. PCR vehicle reached at the spot of accident and referred the matter to Begampur Police Station. Thereafter, on 22.11.2015 D.D. entry bearing No. 23 B was made by the Police about the incident.
1.5. The complainant intimated to the OP1/Insurance Company about the accident. Thereafter, OP1 appointed investigator to verify the said accident. The surveyor of the Insurance Company visited the spot; enquiry was conducted. Mr. Bhola & Associates the investigator vide letter dated 18.03.2016 raised some queries and demanded some documents as detailed in the said letter to be responded by the complainant within seven days from the date of issue of the letter to proceed further (letter dated 18.03.2016 is stated to have been received by the complainant on 22.03.2016); in addition, complainant’s statement was also recorded in writing by the investigator.
1.6. In response to investigator’s letter dated 18.03.2016 as mentioned in para 1.5 of this order; the complaint vide his letter dated 26.03.2016 replied to the queries and also attached necessary documents with the said letter sent to the investigator (photocopy of the postal receipt to this effect is also available on record). Thereafter, surveyor of the insurance company called the complainant and pressurized him to make signature on some statement but the complainant denied to do so. The surveyor of OP1/Insurance Company threatened to implicate him in false and frivolous case and also threatened that if the complainant would not follow the instructions of the surveyor, his claim would not be disbursed.
1.7. It is the case of the complainant that as per requirement of the surveyor; he had provided all required document and fulfilled all the formalities of insurance company to get his claim but OP1/Insurer vide its letter dated 23.06.2016 rejected the claim of the complainant being not tenable as per policy condition no.4 of the Insurer’s Motor Policy and closed the claim file. The grounds of rejection of claim is given as under:-
“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage of any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.
The insurer may deal with the case as they deem fit under above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
The due observation and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsement 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 light of above, we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable & we are closing our file.
1.8. The complainant has alleged ‘deficiency of service and ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of OP1 as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays for directions against OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs. 3,51,000/- (I.D.V.) ; damages to the tune of Rs. 1,49,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental pain and agony and financial loss suffered by him; to pass other or further orders in facts and circumstances of case.
1.9. The complaint is accompanied by copy of insurance policy, copy of registration certificate, copy of letter dated 18.03.2016, copy of D.D. entry bearing no. 23B dated 22.11.2015, copy of letter dated 26.03.2016 and D.D. entry bearing no. 56B dated 13.01.2016.
2.1. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed its reply. The complainant has concealed the material facts. The complainant is guilty of violation of condition no. 4 of the policy which reads “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient conditions.
“As per statement of the complainant, he left the vehicle unattended at road side, at about 4:30 PM on 21.11.2015 and thereafter attended the vehicle only at 09:15 AM on 22.11.2015. The complainant did not take reasonable steps for the safeguard of the vehicle and for repair of the vehicle. Nor it informed to the police or to the answering opposite party, immediately after the accident to prevent further damages to the vehicle. Which is a gross violation of condition No.4 of the insurance policy. Hence in the given situation, the insured failed to safeguard the vehicle and knowing fully well that the vehicle may be further damaged if left unattended and without repair, he left the vehicle at roadside unattended. Hence the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. Copy of the insurance policy along with terms and conditions is annexed herewith as Annexure-A” (Annexure ‘A’ is not filed on record)
2.2. The OP1, upon intimation appointed Sonu Bhola & Associates, investigator to investigate the case. The investigator submitted his detailed report dated 02.05.2016 to the effect that the vehicle got further damaged and got burnt while it was left unattended by the insured in damaged condition at the spot and same is violation of condition no. 4 of the insurance policy. (investigation report is stated to have been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ but not filed on record).
2.3. The complainant did not inform either to the Police or to the OP1 immediately after the accident. The complainant did not co-operate with the Investigator. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. No cause of action in favour of the complainant has arisen. The complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The OP2 (broker) was served on 15.04.2017 and later the OP2 vide proceeding dated 22.05.2023, deemed to be ex-parte, was recorded ex-parte.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP1 which is the replica of the pleadings in the complaint; allegation of OP1 have been denied.
5. The complainant has filed affidavit of evidence which is on the line of facts and features of complaint. The OP1 has filed the affidavit of evidence under the signature of Sh. Anil Kumar Chadha, Vice-President, Legal in its Company which is also on the line and pattern of its reply.
6. The complainant and the OP1 have filed their written arguments which are the narration and repetition of pleadings and evidence.
7.1. (Findings)-The complainant’s vehicle bearing registration no. DL-6CJ6486 was insured with OP1 having policy no. 91747332 and the validity period of Insurance Policy was w.e.f. 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016, for IDV of Rs. 3,51,000/- against premium of Rs. 23,900.57/-; date of incident is 21.11.2015 evening and vehicle was left unattended on the road on the night of the incident; all these facts are undisputed between the parties.
7.2. As per documents, and PCR call report, by the local police dated 22.11.2015 that the incident took place around 5 pm on 21.11.2015. The complainant made efforts to locate crane and mechanic on the day of incident but failed and he went home (as it was late night hours) after leaving the vehicle unattended on the road at the place of incident. If that is so, what prevented the complainant to make PCR call on that very day i.e. on 21.11.2015 and time before leaving vehicle unattended while going to home. The complainant waited for the next day on 22.11.2015 and even failed to make PCR call at the earliest in the morning of 22.11.2015 which was made only at around 10:10 AM as has been recorded by the Police in its PCR call report dated 22.11.2015.
7.3. The OP1’s plea that the complainant did not intimate to it about the occurrence of incident immediately or at the earliest opportunity available to him carries substance; as the complainant has pleaded in his complaint and also deposed in his affidavit that he intimated to the OP1/Insurance Company about the incident; but the complainant has not disclosed the day and time about furnishing intimation to the OP1. However, available record suggests and supplements that intimation to this effect was given to OP1 only the next very day, which prompted OP1 to appoint investigator for spot survey. Therefore, all these circumstances and scenarios suggest manifestly that the complainant has been indolent, idle and not prompt and proactive about his case in informing the local police and OP1 about the incident.
7.4. The complainant in his reply dated 26.03.2016 to the queries of Investigator has admitted that it was evening time on the date of incident and also in PCR report dated 22.11.2015 he told to the police that the incident happened on 21.11.2015 at around 5 PM, all these admissions on the part of the complainant establishes and strengthen the stand of OP1 that the complainant did not intimate the Police and the Opposite Party at the earliest opportunity available to him.
7.5. Further, the complainant in his letter dated 13.01.2016 addressed to the SHO, P.S. Begampur, Delhi and stated to the police as also mentioned in the PCR report that vehicle caught fire due to short circuit. However, it has been the constant stand of the complainant throughout that on the date of incident (21.11.2015) when the vehicle was collided with the road divider it stopped immediately on the road and was unable to re-start. Therefore, he locked the vehicle and left for home after leaving the vehicle on road. However, this narrative of the complainant in itself creates suspicion and vacuum that how the short circuit resulted in fire in a stopped and in non-start vehicle.
8. Therefore, sequence of events and circumstances aforementioned, establishes that complainant violated the condition no. 4 of the policy since he left the vehicle unattended on road that too without informing the PCR and/or the OP1; there is no deficiency of services is attracted on the part of OP1.
9. From the aforementioned detailed discussion on the facts and features of the case, documents on record, the same do not satisfy that OP1 has acted contrary to its duty. We draw the conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish his case against OP1 & OP2.
9. For want of establishing his complaint against OPs, the complaint fails. It is dismissed. No order to cost.
10. Announced on this 13th September, 2023.
11. Copy of this order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
