DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.34/2018

Sh. Hitin Sachdeva

F-11/13, Model Town, Part-2,

New Delhi-110009                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

M/s IffcoTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 

Iffco Sadan, C-1,

District Centre, Saket,

New Delhi-110017                                                       ….Opposite Party

                                                         Date of Institution        : 06.02.2018        Date of Order      : 17.06.2021

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Brief facts as pleaded by the Complainant are that the Complainant had got his vehicle insured from M/s Iffco-Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP). The vehicle Toyota Fortuner was insured for the period of 31.08.2016 to 30.08.2017 for a total sum of Rs.18 lacs.

1. It is stated that the Complainant’s vehicle was stolen from the parking of Amaanta Farm House at Kapeshera, where the Shagun Ceremony of the Complainant was organized on 02.11.2016. An FIR in this regard was registered on 03.11.2016 and OP was immediately notified of the theft and claim was raised by the Complainant. Pursuant to raising of the claim OP appointed AAYBEE Associates & Consultants for the assessment of loss. The OP Company kept delaying the settlement of the claim and finally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14.08.2017 concluding that the third key which was stolen has led to the loss of the vehicle. It is also stated that OP has relied upon condition No.8 of the policy while repudiating the claim. The condition on which the OP’s company has relied upon was never shared with the Complainant as only a single page cover note was provided to the Complainant.
2. Aggrieved by the circumstances mentioned above, the Complainant approached this Commission for direction to OP Company to pay Rs.18 lacs being the value of the insured vehicle alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of the complaint.

2. OP resisted the complaint stating inter-alia that OP requested for the 3^rd car key from the Complainant which was not provided by him. On further insistence of OP-1 Complainant created false and frivolous story of theft of 3^rd car key. It is stated that the Complainant submitted a copy of false and fabricated police complaint dated 8-9/10/2016 which does not bear any Daily Dairy Entry Number/DD Entry Number from Police Station, Sahibabad, U.P.  The Complainant did not give any satisfactory reply as to why the lockset was not changed even after 24 hours of loosing the 3^rd key by the Complainant. Therefore OP submits that losing the 3^rd car key is gross negligence on the part of the Complainant which has played significant role in theft of the vehicle.    

i.         It is next stated by OP that the driver’s statement that the car was parked at 10.45 PM and went missing at 11 PM is not reliable as Complainant and his family were host of the event which was scheduled from 7:00 PM onwards on 02.11.2016. It is further stated that the driver gave the statement at a very later stage almost after two months of the theft of the vehicle. OP further states that the Complainant has violated the Condition No.8 of the policy, thus violating good faith, delay and false disclosure. In the said circumstances OP prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.  

3. Rejoinder and evidence is filed on behalf of the Complainant. OP failed to file evidence and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 19.11.2019.
4. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the Complainant. Exparte arguments are heard on behalf of the Complainant and we have perused the material placed on record. 
5. Complainant’s case as made out from the pleadings that his vehicle bearing registration No. DL-10-CE-7313 got stolen from outside Amaanta Farm House on 02.11.2016 between 10.45 PM - 11 PM. It is further the case of the Complainant that on 09.02.2016 one of the 3 original keys of his vehicle was misplaced when he had gone to visit his friend in Ghaziabad and he had lodged a complaint at Police Station Sahibabad on 09.10.2016 itself for the loss of key. It is further the case of the Complainant that his claim had been repudiated by the OP company relying upon Clause - 4 and Clause-8 of the policy whereas he was not made aware of the said Clauses as the complete document policy was never made available to him.
6. OP resisted the complaint on the ground that the story of key getting misplaced on 09.10.2016 is a concocted version as the complaint lodged by the Complainant at Police Station Sahibabad does not bear any Dairy Number. It is also the case of the OP that that the statement of the driver was delayed by almost two months which raises suspicion on the initial version that the vehicle was lost between 10.45 PM -11 PM on 02/11/2016. This is further disputed by the OP on the ground that the ceremony of Sagai of the Complainant was to start at 7 PM and missing of the vehicle at 11 PM does not seem to be convincing. It is also the case of the OP that the terms and conditions of the policy are sacrosanct and binding.
7. Complainant’s case that he was not served the complete policy of the document does not permit him to escape the provisions whereof. It is not his case that after getting the vehicle insured on 30.08.2016 he had asked for the copy of policy and the same was not made available to him. Moreover if he was not aware of such Clause in the policy that misplacement of 3^rd key shall repudiate his claim he had no occasion to lodge a complaint on 09/10/16 for a missing key, therefore the Complainant’s version that he was not aware of this Clause goes contrary to his lodging a complaint at Police Station, Sahibabad for the lost key.
8. Arguments of Complainant’s counsel that theft took place almost 24 days after the loss of the key and at a distance of 62-65 kms. which challenges the OP’s version that the loss of 3^rd key played a significant role in  theft of vehicle, does not impress this Commission. Gap of 24 days between the alleged loss of key at a distance of 62-65 Kms. and theft of vehicle, is not wide enough to obliterate the connect between two. Further OP has also disbelieved the version of loss of key on 09.10.2016. Complainant’s version that OP could have verified the complaint lodged by the Complainant from Police Station, Sahibabad does not impress this Commission as it was Complainant who was to establish the loss of key. Further it creates doubt in the mind of this Commission as to why the Complainant lodged an FIR at Sahibabad whereas he was going to a friend’s place at Ghaziabad. The explanation of the delay in driver’s statement stating that the driver was unwell also does not impress this Commission. Complainant has not placed any document on record or has shown anything to the OP confirming that the driver was incapacitated and could not join the investigation sooner, therefore role of the driver and lost key cannot be ruled out.
9. Reliance placed upon by the Complainant on law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal [(2008) II SCC 259] does not help him. In the case (supra) the Respondent had sent his vehicle to bring his children from Jaipur. On the way, some unknown people snatched the vehicle from the driver. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim that the car was being used by the Respondent, as a taxi. It was under these circumstances, that Hon’ble State Commission held, that violation of such a condition, could not be germane, to the incident and as such,  repudiation of  the claim in entirety, could not be said to be justified. The facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of instant case. Breach of condition of insurance policy in the present case is relevant as the breach was most likely the theft of the vehicle. Therefore we find the repudiation for the justifiable reason.
10. It is the admitted case of the Complainant that he had deposited 2 keys with OP to raise the claim. The Complainant also admits that the 3^rd key had got misplaced and he had not changed the lockset within 24 hours. OP is thus right in repudiating the claim holding that the conduct of the Complainant was grossly negligent as he had not got the lockset changed after having the knowledge that he has lost a key. In aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Commission is of the opinion that repudiation of the claim by the OP was as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no illegality therein. Hence finding no merit in the case the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 17.06.2021.