DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.67 of 17.2.2016

                                      Decided on:    16.8.2017

Lakhwinder Singh son of Amrik Singh r/o # BJ-211, Navyug Colony, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Iffko Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its M.D., situated at Corporate Office, 4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFKO Tower Plot No.3, Sector 29 Gurgaon (Haryana).

2.       Iffko Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.through its Branch Manager, Branch office at Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, 5-C/1, Near National Nursery, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Sanjay Bharaj,Adv. counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate,counsel for Ops No.1&2.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                 Sh.Lakhwinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To  pay Rs.2,50,000/-, the total assessed value of the vehicle in dispute;

2.  To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment;

3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses  and

4. To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

2.       In brief the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle Mahindra Bolero Camper bearing registration No.PB-11AH-8669 Model 2007 , having engine No.59644, chassis No.53479. The same was got insured from the OPs for the period from 11.1.2014 to 10.102015 vide policy/cover note No.86352051. An amount of Rs.12,448.36ps was paid as premium for the said policy. The total value of the said vehicle was assessed at Rs.2,50,000/-. Unfortunately, in the intervening night of 15.10.2014, the said vehicle was stolen. The complainant immediately approached the police and got FIR No.220 dated 15.10.2014 registered. No trace report with regard to the vehicle in question was also issued by the Hon’ble Court on 19.9.2015. He lodged the claim with the ops immediately alongwith all the relevant papers. Till today, the OPs did not settle the claim inspite of writing letter in this regard. He also got sent a legal notice dated 11.1.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. The OPs till today neither paid any amount nor settle the claim. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency of service on account of which he underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.       On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them vide policy No.86352056 for the period from 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015.It is stated that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 24.9.2014, whereas he intimated the OPs on 6.10.2014. The FIR with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question was lodged after a considerable delay of 25 days. It is stated that after receipt of intimation of theft, they deputed Er.Vikas Gulati, Investigator, who submitted his report dated 10.11.2014. After consideration, the competent authority vide letter dated 13.11.2014, asked the complainant for explanation of reason of delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the insurance company. Reminders dated 12.12.2014, 15.1.2015, 4.2.2015 and 3.3.2015 were also written in this regard to the complainant but the complainant failed to reply. The complainant has also not submitted the second key of the vehicle with the OPs .It is stated that the Insurance company has not refused to pay the claim but the same was pending for want of clarification from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismissed the complaint.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.

          The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Sanket Gupta alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the car of the complainant was duly insured with the Ops for the period from 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015 as is evident from the copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C2. It got stolen on 15.10.2014 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy. He immediately registered the FIR with the police and also intimated the OPs regarding the theft of the vehicle in question  but the Ops did not settle the claim of the complainant till yet.

7.       On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the Ops has submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 24.9.2014, whereas he intimated the insurance company on 6.10.2014 and FIR with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question was lodged after a delay of 25 days. Vide letter dated 13.11.2014, the complainant was asked for explanation for the reasons of delay in lodging the FIR and also for the reasons of delay in intimating the Ops. Reminders were also written to the complainant in this regard. But the complainant has not made any efforts to give the explanation regarding delay in intimating the police as well as to the insurance company and the claim of the complainant is still pending for want to clarification from the complainant and the complaint filed by the complainant may kindly be dismissed.

8.       The car of the complainant was duly insured with the Ops for the period from 11.1.2014 to 10.1.2015 as is evident from the copy of certificate of insurance Ex.C2 . From the copy of FIR, Ex.C3, it is evident that the complainant lodged the FIR on 15.10.2014, whereas his car was stolen on 24.9.2014. Thus from the FIR, it is  clear that there is delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR from the date of occurrence of incidence. In the claim assignment / Reserves,Ex.OP2,  the date of loss/occurrence has been mentioned as 30.9.2014, meaning thereby there is delay of approx. six days  in informing the Ops about the theft of the car in question, which occurred on 24.9.2014 and not delay of 25 days as alleged by the Ops. It may be stated that it was incumbent upon the complainant to inform the insurance company immediately, upon the occurrence of incidence. However, at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that all the insurance companies are governed by IRDA guidelines . As per IRDA circular dated 20.9.2011, no genuine claim should be rejected on technical ground of delay and that the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound, logic and valid grounds”.  In the case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ramcharan Dhobi  2017(1)CLT 557, the Hon’ble National Commission by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court, in the case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(3)CLT 1(SC)=II(2010)CPJ9 (SC) has held that “insurance claim of the complainant for theft of his vehicle may be allowed but not to the tune of 100% because there  has been  deficiency on the part of the complainant in not informing the insurance company in writing and in time as per the terms and conditions of the policy-Interest of justice would be served if the insurance claim is allowed for 60% of the insured value of the vehicle”. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ramcharan Dhobi,(supra), we  partly allow the complaint and  direct the Ops to pay 60% of the insured value of the vehicle in question to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which interest @9% shall be payable on this amount from the date of this order till actual payment. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:16.8. 2017      

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER