District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.308/2019.
Date of Institution: 14.06.2019.
Date of Order: 15.07.2022.
Virender Singh son of Shri Dharampal R/o Village Mujheri Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. IFFCo Tokiyo General Insurance company Limited, regd. Office IFFCO Sadan C-1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 through its MD/Director/principal Officer.
2. M/s. Iffco tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Servicing office: 416-421, 4th floor, Narain Manzil Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 through its MD/Director/Principal Officer shifted to Second office FAI Building 2nd floor, 10, Saheed Jet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi – 110 067 phone 01145787300 1011-45787397.
3. M/s. Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2 ist floor, Special HUDA Market, Sector-19, Faridabad Near Amar Tex Show room through its Manager.
…Opposite parties……
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. S.S.Nagar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Bansal, counsel for opposite parties. Nos.1 to 3.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle Haiwa Truck bearing its registration No. HR-38-S-0435, chassis No. MBYB97700CFA25907, Model 6/2012 and the complainant had go insured the said truck for a sum was Rs.20,08,395/- through the opposite party comprehensively, vide insurance policy NO. # 1-2USR31VP400 policy # 88264905 valid from 27.06.2014 to 26.06.2015 on payment of premium of Rs.45,271,77 Ps. Thereby covering all type of risks like accident damages, theft and fire etc. On the fateful day on 11.4.2015 vehicle in question was driven by the skilled driver and when vehicle in question in a daily routine loaded in Rewasan Zone Village Indri, Mewat and which was likely to be reach Nangal Pahari Bharatpur Rajasthan met with an accident and itself vehicle in question slowly from sierra and fall into the deep pit and the driver of the vehicle in question saved himself by way of jump out from the cabin of the vehicle in question in the last minute as he lost the con troll on the vehicle in question and his accident took place within second and driver of the vehicle could not guess anything in anticipation and despite his best effort could not save vehicle in question form this accident. In due process the complainant informed the opposite party immediately in respect of this accident and surveyor of the opposite parties advised the complainant to the vehicle from the spot and brought to the repairing centre. The complainant brought the damaged truck from the spot with the help of cranes on the same day to M/s. Santosh Motor Garrage and Earthmovers, Pali Badkhal road, village Pali, Faridabad (Haryana). The proprietor of the said repairing centre prepared Service Quotation dated 16.05.2015 and assessed the estimated loss of Rs.16,11,990/-. The complainant lodged a claim with opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of insured amount of Rs.20,08,395/- and the opposite parties assured to make the payment of the said amount as soon as possible. The opposite parties inspite given assured amount of the complainant issued a letter dated 15.6.2015 through their surveyor and loss assessor Shri Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal and demanded certain documentations mentioned in this letter and the complainant comply with this demand and provided documentation which were available. Again the opposite parties repeated the same demands by way of sending the letter/reminder dated 26.10.2015 and again the complainant forced to repeat the same documentation and lastly the opposite parties sent final letter dated 09.11.2015 whereby again same demands repeated from the side of the opposite parties and the complainant fulfilled the requirements demanded by the opposite parties. But claim of the complainant did not release by the opposite parties till date. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) release the assured and settle claim of Rs.18,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum on account of damaged caused in the accident of the insured vehicle Truck bearing its registration No. HR-38-S-0435 against the insurance policy to the complainant jointly & severally.
b) pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was stopped by his act, conduct, omission and commissions from filing the present complaint had clear shows the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and had breached the contract. Hence, the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by the company legally and rightly vide letter dated 09.11.2015 and the complainant was not entitled to any compensation form the opposite parties.
The claim of the complainant had been lodged by the opposite parties qua the damaged truck vide claim No. 36213387 and thereafter immediately, the opposite parties appointed Mr. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal Surveyor to conduct the motor survey of the damaged vehicle in question and several letters/ communication had been made with the complainant on 15.04.2015, 15.06.2015 and 26.10.2015 for settlement of the claim of the complainant and asked him to provide the documents but the complainant had not been supplied the requisite documents. It was denied that the complainant brought the damages truck from the spot with the help of cranes to M/s. Santosh Motor Garage and Earth Movers, Pali – Badhkhal Road Village Pali and quotation dated 16.05.2015 of estimated loss of Rs.16,11,090/- as alleged. It was submitted that he opposite parties had rightly declined the claim of the complainant vide final letter dated 09.11.2015 as the complainant not provide the requisite documents after repeated requests by the answering opposite parties. The details of the requisite documents were as under:-
a. Get the vehicle repaired as per surveyor assessment.
b. Copy of FIR (if any).
c. Injury details (if any)
d. Load challan of the vehicle duly verified by surveyor (Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal Ph. 9810074838) from the original.
e. Cranes bill if any.
f. Produce the vehicle for e-inspection after repair.
g. Original bill of repair.
Inspite of regular reminder from the opposite parties and they had received the above mentioned documents/information and its seems that the complainant was not interested in pursuing his claim and thereafter the opposite parties had closed his claim vide registered letter dated 09.11.2015. Opposite parties 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 parties – Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to : a) release the assured and settle claim of Rs.18,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum on account of damaged caused in the accident of the insured vehicle Truck bearing its registration No. HR-38-S-0435 against the insurance policy to the complainant jointly & severally. b) pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.11,000/ - as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Shri Virender Singh, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – DL,, Ex.C-3 – insurance policy, Ex.C-4 - Service quotation, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 15.06.2015, regarding provide the documents, Ex.C-6 – Reminder letter -2 dated 26.10.2015 regarding document required for claim.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties, Ex.R/A – affidavit of Shri Nitin Verma, Iffco Tokio General Insurancae Company Ltd., Jaipur,
6. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
7. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 25%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
8. 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.20,08,395.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs.20,07,395.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 5,01,848.75
Total : Rs. 15,05,546.25
9. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 15,05,546.25 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses 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. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant is stated that he is not interested to keep the salvage with him. Hence, the complainant is directed to deposit the salvage with the insurance company. 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: 15.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
