District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.102/2021.
Date of Institution: 25.02.2021.
Date of Order: 02.09.2022.
Ankus Lohan son of Shri Virender R/o H. NO. 119. Sector-21B, Faridabad (Haryana).
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No. 10, FAI House, Saheed Jit Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110 067.
…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.
PRESENT: Sh. Dharmender Kumar and Shri Yogender Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Bansal, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant got insured his motor cycle No. HR-51BD-4739, Spl. N-Pro. Model 2015 from the opposite party on dated 27.08.2018 w.e.f. 30.08.2018 to 29.08.2019 vide policy No. M-2727186 and the said policy was a comprehensive policy in which theft of the vehicle was covered. The total insured value of the vehicle as per policy was Rs.30240/-. The motor cycle of the complainant was theft on 31.10.2018 from Lohan Nursing Home, NH-5, NIT, Faridabad and an FIR in this regard was lodged with the police station NIT, Faridabad vide FIR No. 0458 dated 04.11.2018. The complainant after preparing/collecting all the documents i.e FIR, last report, untraced report, endorsement of no use of vehicle with Registering Authority Faridabad and other documents which were required/asked by the opposite party to the complainant submitted to their office on 03.12.2019 for claim of the theft vehicle vide claim NO. 37812950 but till date the opposite party had not released/passed any claim in favour of the complainant. The complainant sent so many letters to the opposite party and remained in their contact through email to pass his claim and amid this correspondence the complainant lastly repudiated the claim of his above said client illegally, unlawfully and arbitrarily which was against law and natural justice vide their letter dated 17.07.2020 as the opposite party told in their letter/email correspondence dated 31.07.2020 taking false and baseless plea of delay intimation to the insurance company and one key not deposited. The complainant sent legal notice dated 05.01.2020 through speed post to the opposite party but all in vain. 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) pay a sum of Rs.30240/- as theft claim i.e. the insured value of the vehicle/motor cycle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.
b) pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per bare perusal of the alleged FIR bearing NO. 458 dated 04.11.2018 the alleged incident had taken place on 31.10.2018 whereas complainant informed the answering opposite party only on 14.01.2019 i.e. after delay of 75 days as such there was material breach of conditions of the policy of insurance as because the complainant had failed to immediately inform the answering opposite parties as per condition NO.1 of the policy terms and conditions. The insured informed to the answering opposite party vide Motor Claim Form dated 16.01.2019 and as such the intimation to the company was also a very belated stage after lapse of 75 days. After lodging the theft claim of the complainant the opposite party company immediately appointed his investigator namely M/s. Shree Narain Hari Investigation Bureau and after investigation conducted by the investigator and other documents, copy of investigator report, it had been found that the complainant himself negligent because “ as per written statement given by the complainant to the investigator, it was observed that the complainant had lost one key of the vehicle three years back, however rather than getting the lockset replaced, complainant draw the vehicle which amounts to gross negligence and failure to take reasonable care to prevent and protect the vehicle from loss or damage, which was a violation of policy conditions No.4.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 Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) pay a sum of Rs.30240/- as theft claim i.e. the insured value of the vehicle/motor cycle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. b) pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the complainant.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.PW1/P1 –affidavit of Ankus Lohan,, Ex.P2 – Vehicle Particulars (For internal use),, Ex.P2 – Tax invoice, Ex.P3 – RC, Ex.P4 – insurance policy, Ex.P5 – FIR, Ex.P6 – Antim report,, Ex.P7 – letter dated 29.01.2019,, Ex.P8 – RTOI letter dated 1.4.2019,, Ex.P9 – reply of RTO letter,, Ex.P10 to 15 – emails, Ex.P16 – letter regarding documents written by the opposite parties to the complainant, Ex.P17 – Copy of order dated 27.09.2019, Ex.P18 - untraced report, Ex.P19 – legal notice,, Ex.P20 – postal receipt,, Ex.P21 – Adhaar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.R/A – affidavit of Shri Shri Alok Gupta, General Manager Claims, M/s. Iffco Tokio General InsuraceCo. Ltd., having its office at 2nd floor, FAI Building 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutab Intuitional Area, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 – repudiation letter dated 15.07.2020, Ex,R-2 – insurance policy,, Ex.R-3 – Motor Claim Form, Ex.R-4(1 to 4) – letter dated 16.01.2019, Ex.R-5 – Statement of Ajender, Ex.R-6 – letter dated 01.03.2019.
6. In this case, the complainant got insured his motor cycle No. HR-51BD-4739, Spl. N-Pro. Model 2015 from the opposite party on dated 27.08.2018 w.e.f. 30.08.2018 to 29.08.2019 vide policy No. M-2727186 and the said policy was a comprehensive policy in which theft of the vehicle was covered. The total insured value of the vehicle as per policy was Rs.30240/-. The motor cycle of the complainant was theft on 31.10.2018 from Lohan Nursing Home, NH-5, NIT, Faridabad and an FIR in this regard was lodged with the police station NIT, Faridabad vide FIR No. 0458 dated 04.11.2018. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 15.07.2020 on the ground that “On perusal of the investigation report and other documents available on record, the following observations have been made:
Your claim having date of loss 31.10.2018 was reported to us on 14.01.2019 thereby causing a delay of 75 days thus depriving us on n opportunity to verify the genuineness of claim and the chance to recover the insured vehicle. This amounts to violation of condition No.1 and condition No.8 of the policy schedule.
In the light of the above, we regret to inform you that your claim is not tenable and does not fall under the purview of the policy.”
7. The motor cycle of the complainant was theft on 31.10.2018 from Lohan Nursing Home, NH-5, NIT, Faridabad and an FIR in this regard was lodged with the police station NIT, Faridabad vide FIR No. 0458 dated 04.11.2018. The complainant intimated to the answering opposite party vide motor claim form dated 16.01.2019 after a lapse of 75 days. As per Ex.R-5 statement of Ajender that original key had lost before 3 years of theft of the vehicle in question and the registered owner of vehicle is Ankush Lohan. This proves that opposite party has failed to establish their case.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that in case of minor violations, the claim be settled on non standard basis. In this case we are fortified by the judgement of the apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010 wherein it was held that in case of minor violations, claim cannot be denied in toto.
9. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion
that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of Vehicle : Rs.30,240/-
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000/-
: Rs.29,240/-
Deduction of 40% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 11,696/-
Total : Rs. 17,544/-
10. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.17,544/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization along with Rs. 2200/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and also to pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 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: 02.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
