District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 64/2022.
Date of Institution:02.02.2022.
Date of Order: 23.01.2023.
Sunil son of Rajbir aged 40 years residence of House – 896, Village Pali , Tehsil Badkhal and District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Iffco-tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch/Divisional Office: SCO No.2, First floor, HUDA Market, Sector-19, Faridabad, Haryana through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Shyoraj Bainsla, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. O.P.Gaur, counsel for opposite party
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was registered owner of vehicle of HYWA bearing its registration No. HR-38-S-5271 (Model 2013) bearing its chassis No. MBYB97700DCA29837, engine No. 31C84098980. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party company bearing policy NO. 98804153 valid from 02.07.2016 to 01.07.2017 and sum assured of Rs.18,00,000/- and the complainant had paid the premium of the said policy to the tune of Rs.52,650/-. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 03.10.2016 from Kuresi meat Wali, Sainik Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi and complainant driver namely Mubarik son of Kasam had lodged complaint to police and Delhi police had registered a FIR No. 029219 dated 04.10.2016 u/s 379 IPC police station crime branch e-police station, Delhi. The complainant had immediately informed the opposite party regarding missing/theft of above said vehicle. The opposite party appointed a surveyor and surveyor visited the spot and after verification regarding theft surveyor demanding some document then complainant supplied all document which was demanding by surveyor including report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and untraced report dated 02.11.2016 and submitted to the opposite party company. Thereafter the complainant so many times visited the office of the opposite party company and requested to disburse the clamed amount but the opposite party company avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and the officers of opposite party refused to disburse the claimed amount giving any justifiable reason. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the payment of Rs.18,00,000/- alongiwth 18% from the date of untraced report dated 02.11.2016 till the released of amount.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the occurrence in question had allegedly took place on 03.10.2016 and the insurance company had treated the subject motor insurance claim as “Repudiated” vide its letter dated 30.03.2019 sent under registered post to the insured. It was further submitted that the present complaint was told to be lodged before the Commission on February 02,2022. Therefore, the complaint was hopelessly time barred. The complaint neither has any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint It was submitted that the complainant had suppressed and concealed the true, vital and material facts & information in lodging the present complaint before the Hon’ble Commission. It was submitted that the insurance company received an “Intimation of Occurrence” on 13.10.2016, allegedly theft of Truck No. HR-38S-5271 on the intervening night of 3-4/10/2016 in the area of “Qureshi Meat Wali Gali,, Sainik vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi”. As a result, the insurance company deputed an independent and qualified investigator in regards to verify the alleged occurrence, if any, It was submitted that the investigator carried out the investigation and sought the requisite mandatory claim documents from the insured vide letters and reminders thereto under registered post inter-alia seeking the following document vide dated 20.10.2016 followed with dated 19.11.2016, 28.11.2016, 09.12.2016, 18.12.2016, 23.12.2016 and lastly vide dated 03.01.2017:
i. Claim form
ii. ID proof
ii Original R.C.
iv. Permit, fitness & tax receipts.
v. Toll tax & green tax receipts
vi. Last Goods receipt (GR)
vii. Letter from financer that vehicle is not repossessed by the financer.
viii. Letter to RTA
ix. Original FIR
x. Original final untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. from Illaqa Magistrate.
It was further submitted that during course of investigation, the insured – Sunil and the driver viz. Mubarik tendered their respective statement in writing volunatarily, willingly and independently to the investigator. In furtherance of the investigation, the investigator furnished his investigation report dated 12.10.12017 to the insurance company inter alia arriving his conclusion that the vehicle got stolen due to gross negligence of driver – Mubarik, since leaving the vehicle unattended on 03.10.2016 at around 10.30 .m. and went to meet his brother and returned to the spot on 04.10.2016 at around 7.00 a.m. (i.e. after 81/2 hours). The investigator had also observed that the insured intimated the insurance company in regards to the occurrence with delay of 9 days. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Iffco tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of Rs.18,00,000/- alongwith 18% from the date of untraced report dated 02.11.2016 till the released of amount. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sunil, Ex.C1 – insurance policy from 02.07.2016 to 1.07.2017, & from 22.03.2013 to 21.03.2014, Ex.C2 – legal notice, Ex.C3 – letter written by the complainant to RTA, Faridabad, Ex.C-4 – order dated 02.11.2016 passed by E-Court, M.V.Theft, Ex.C5 – FIR, Ex.C6 – Authorization certificate of N.P (Goods), Ex.C-7 – Token Tax (road Tax) Book,, Ex.C8 – Tax Penalty receipt,, Ex.C9 – Passenger & Goods Taxation,, Ex.C-10- RC, Ex.C-11 – Certificate of fitness,, Ex.C-12 – Authorization Certificate of N.P.Goods,x.C-13 – Token Tax (road tax), Ex.C-14 – Screen Report of vehicle,, Ex.C-15 – Certificate of fitness,, Ex.C-16 – Adhaar card, Ex.C-17 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Hardeep Singh, deputy General Manager (Legal), M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Bhawan, 3rd floor, Plot NO.2 B & C, Madhya Marg, Sector-28A, Chandigarh, Annx.R-1 – insurance policy, Annx.R/2 – investigation report, Annx.R/3 – Statement of Mubarik, Annx.R/4 – Statement of Sunil, Annx.R-5- No Claim letter.
6. There is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant got his vehicle of HYWA bearing registration No.HR-38-S-5271 insured with opposite party vide insurance policy No. 98804153 covering the risk from 02.07.2016 to 01.07.2017 for an insured amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was stolen on 03.10.2016 and FIR No. 029219 regarding theft was lodged on 04.10.2016 u/s. 379 IPC and opposite party treated claim as No claim” vide letter dated 30.03.2019..
7. Theft of aforesaid vehicle in question place 03.10.2016 and First Information Report was lodged on 4.10.2016. Lodging of FIR after 1 day is not significant in genuine claim of the complainant. A person who lost his vehicle in question may not go to the police. At the first instance he himself makes efforts to search his vehicle and thereafter lodge complaint with the police.
8.. As per the circular dated September 20th, 2011 issued by INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY wherein it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution as well as the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.
9. The Commission is of the considered opinion that grounds of repudiating claim of the complainant company by opposite party was unjustified which amounts to deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, complaint is allowed.
10. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant:
i) IDV value of vehicle in question amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
ii) Rs.3300/- as compensation on account of mental tension and agony.
iii) Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35A. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 23.01.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
