Haryana

Sonipat

CC/428/2015

Pardeep S/o Jai Bhagwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffico Tokiyo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Daya Nand Antil

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.428 of 2015

                                Instituted on:20.11.2015

                                Date of order:25.07.2016

 

Pardeep son of Jai Bhagwan resident of village Kamaspur, tehsil and district Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. DN Antil, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his vehicle bearing no.HR69A-0194 was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2014 for Rs.2,50,000/- and unfortunately, the same was stolen on 19.4.2014.  FIR no.136 dated 20.4.2014 was registered with the concerned police station.  The complainant has lodged the claim for its payment but the respondent has closed the claim for the reasons of non compliance with claim documents.  The complainant has alleged the above said decision of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has failed to take minimum reasonable step to safeguard the vehicle and the same is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  The vehicle no.HR69A-0194 was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2014.  Intimation was given to the respondent on 21.4.2014.  The investigator was deputed who requested the complainant for submitted the necessary documents vide letters dated 9.12.2014, 20.12.2014, 28.1.2015, 27.2.2015, but the complainant has not supplied the requisite documents.  However, after perusing the available documents, it was found that the vehicle was not having a valid and effective fitness certificate at the time of alleged theft and the vehicle was being used by the complainant without  valid fitness certificate which is in violation of the policy terms and conditions and thus, the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has wrongly, illegally and only to cause unnecessary harassment has closed the claim file of the complainant.  The demand of fitness certificate is also illegal, because the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and it has not met with any road side accident.

          In support of his case, he has relied upon the case law titled as National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Diya, CLT 2015(2) page 543 and National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh, CPJ 2010(1) page 167 (NC).

          In the present case, it is admitted by the respondent that the vehicle was insured with them for the period 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2014.  Intimation was given to the respondent by the complainant on 21.4.2014.

          The reason for closing the claim file of the complainant as ‘no claim” as per the respondent is that investigator was deputed who requested the complainant for submitted the necessary documents vide letters dated 9.12.2014, 20.12.2014, 28.1.2015, 27.2.2015, but the complainant has not supplied the requisite documents.  However, after perusing the available documents, it was found that the vehicle was not having a valid and effective fitness certificate at the time of alleged theft and the vehicle was being used by the complainant without  valid fitness certificate which is in violation of the policy terms and conditions and thus, the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘no claim’.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief qua the respondent or not?

          In our view, the non-payment of the claim amount to the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not having a valid and effective fitness certificate at the time of alleged theft is wrong, illegal and unjustified, because the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and it has not met with any road side accident.  The vehicle of the complainant has stolen on 19.4.2014 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 25.5.2013 to 24.5.2014 i.e. within validity period of the insurance policy.  Thus, the respondent insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.two lac fifty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (J.L.Gupta)                  (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF   Member DCDRF                  DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:25.07.2016