Haryana

StateCommission

A/997/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KRISHAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

YOGESH GUPTA

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 997 of 2016

Date of Institution: 21.10.2016

Date of Decision : 23.11.2016

 

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, Distt. Center, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its M.D.

                                                          Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 Versus

 

1.      Krishan Kumar son of Sardar Singh, Resident of Ward No.12, Laxmi Vihar, Barwala, Distt. Hisar.

                                                         Respondent- Complainant

 

2.      Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 3 Local Shopping Complex, Second Floor, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi through its Authorised Signatory.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

                                                                                               

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing this appeal, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd-opposite party No.1 (in short, ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated September 01^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Krishan Kumar-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “10.   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is merit in this complaint which is hereby accepted. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,78,414.93 to the respondent No.1-Citi Corp Finance (India) Limited as the balance amount of loan payable by the complainant to the respondent No.2 and further directed the respondent No.1 to pay the balance insured amount i.e. Rs.5,21,586/- (10,00,000/- minus 4,78,414.93) to the complainant….”

2.      Complainant got his truck bearing No.HR-39A-9613 insured with the Insurance Company for the period February, 02^nd 2013 to February, 1^st 2014. On October 10^th, 2013 the complainant parked his truck in front of Shop No.459, Phase-III, Auto Market, Hisar for its repair.  Next day, the truck was found to be stolen.  First Information Report No.1267 dated October 11^th, 2013 under Section 379 of IPC was registered with Police.  The Insurance Company was also informed.  The claim submitted by the complainant was not settled by the Insurance Company.  Hence, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the complainant did not intimate the Insurance Company.  The truck was left unlocked. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.

4.      The Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.-opposite party No.2 also denied the averments of the complainant and pleaded that the complainant entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with it.  The complainant was defaulter in making payment of Rs.3,86,412.60.

5.      Undisputedly, the truck was stolen during the subsistence of the policy.  First Information Report was lodged on the same day. The complainant has also intimated the Insurance Company on the same day.  He filed an affidavit to this effect.  The Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant did not intimate the Insurance Company.  The truck was stated to have been stolen when it was parked in front of the workshop for repair.  This act of complainant cannot be treated as willful breach of condition No.5 of the insurance policy.  Thus, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the complainant with respect to the theft of insured truck.  One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 23.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK