DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.528 of 18-11-2010 Decided on 23-05-2011
Jagsir Singh, aged 24 years, s/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh, r/o St.No.5, #31838, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, 2nd Floor, Opp. Nirankari Bhawan, G.T.Road, Bathinda. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Regd Office IFFCO Sadan C-1, Distt. Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017400001, through its M.D.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Harinder Singh Aklia, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant took Insurance Policy for his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-03-R-3051, Chassis No.13636 and Engine No.16093, cover note 41015049 vide Policy No.1-CDGQ-55, P400 Policy 72371971 for the period from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2011 and he deposited Rs.903.66/- as premium to the opposite parties. The IDV value of the said vehicle was assessed as Rs.35,000/- by the opposite parties. The said motorcycle has been stolen on 10.08.2010 alongwith original R.C. by some unknown persons and he got registered FIR No.72 dated 23.08.2010 under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Civil Line, Bathinda and all the formalities with regard to the claim i.e. claim Form etc. was completed by the complainant. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to settle his claim but till today, the opposite parties have not made the payment of the claim amount. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and admitted that the complainant paid Rs.903.66/- as insurance premium. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant wrongly disclosed the market value of the motorcycle as Rs.35,000/-, though its market value was only Rs.25,000/- as disclosed by the complainant himself in FIR. The opposite parties have further pleaded that in case of any loss to the vehicle, the claim is settled by the opposite parties as per terms and conditions of the Policy which were duly supplied to the complainant at the time of Insurance of the vehicle. In fact, no such theft had taken place and the alleged FIR has been got registered by the complainant by concocting a story in connivance with the Police officials. The alleged theft is stated to have taken place on 10.08.2010 but the FIR has been registered after 13 days i.e. on 23.08.2010. The complainant did not give immediate intimation neither to the Police nor to the opposite parties. Further, while lodging the FIR, the complainant did not disclose that the RC of the motor cycle was in the Motor cycle itself. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the claim of the complainant is under process and has not been finalized. The complainant has submitted the untraced report dated 18.12.2010 alongwith application dated 31.01.2011 before this Forum. The complainant was time and again asked to complete all the formalities to settle his claim but he did not complete the same. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had purchased the Motorcycle vide bill/Invoice No.20424 dated 18.01.2008 for Rs.41,350/- and got it insured with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the said Policy was renewed, the IDV value was assessed as Rs.35,000/- and premium amount of Rs.903.66/- was deposited and the said Policy was valid from 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2011 i.e. one year. During Policy period, on 10.08.2010, the Motorcycle of the complainant was stolen alongwith his original R.C. which was lying in the said Motorcycle. The complainant got registered FIR No.72 dated 23.08.2010 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, Civil Line, Bathinda. All the formalities with regard to the claim, were completed by the complainant. But his claim has not been settled till date despite his repeated requests. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that it is true that the complainant had paid the premium of Rs.903.66/- to insure his vehicle in question. The complainant has wrongly disclosed the market value of the vehicle in question as Rs.35,000/- whereas, the insured value of the vehicle was only Rs.25,000/- as disclosed by the complainant himself in FIR. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that if there is any loss to the vehicle, the claim is settled by the opposite parties as per terms and conditions of the Policy which were duly supplied to the complainant at the time of insurance and further on supplying all the relevant documents by the complainant/insured. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that the complainant has lodged a false claim against the opposite parties, in fact no such theft has taken place and the alleged FIR registered by the complainant by concocting a false story in connivance with the Police officials. The theft has taken place on 10.08.2010 and the FIR has been registered after 13 days i.e. on 23.08.2010. The complainant neither gave immediate intimation to the Police nor to the opposite parties and has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy which are already in the possession of the complainant himself. Further, at the time of lodging the FIR, the complainant did not disclose that the RC of the vehicle was in the Motorcycle itself. The claim of the complainant is under process and has not been finalizing so far. For processing the claim, the complainant has to submit the untraced report which he has submitted on 18.12.2010 alongwith application dated 31.01.2011 before this Forum. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that the complaint is pre-mature. 7. The complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 18.01.2008 and he has paid Rs.903.66/- as premium and cover note Ex.C-6 was issued to the complainant in which, the IDV of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.35,000/-. The opposite parties have argued that the complainant has wrongly disclosed the IDV of the vehicle as Rs.35,000/- whereas the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.25,000/- which he has himself disclosed in FIR. To prove their version, the opposite parties have placed nothing on file that actually the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.25,000/- and the complainant has wrongly disclosed the market value as Rs.35,000/- to the insurance company whereas this was the duty of the opposite parties to confirm the IDV of the vehicle at the time of issuing of the Policy according to its model. As per Auto Protector, Policy Wording for Two-Wheelers Ex.R-2 which is reproduced as under:- “The Schedule of Depreciation for fixing IDV of the vehicle
Age of the Vehicle % of Depreciation for Fixing IDV Not exceeding 6 months 5% Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year 15% Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years 20% Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years 30% Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding 4 years 40% Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding 5 years 50% In the present case, the model of the vehicle is 2007 and the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 18.01.2008 and the vehicle was stolen on 10.08.2010. The opposite parties were duty bound to calculate the IDV according to the above mentioned chart and should not have involved in any ambiguity. 8. The complainant has specifically alleged that the vehicle was stolen on 10.08.2010 and the original RC was in the said Motorcycle and has lodged FIR No.72 dated 23.08.2010 with Policy Station, Civil Line, Bathinda. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties on account of theft and completed all the formalities. Mr. Rajiv Chaudhary, authorized signatory, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-1 that the claim of the complainant is under process and has not been finalized so far. For processing the claim, untraced report was required which has not been submitted by the complainant and the same has been submitted by him on 18.12.2010 alongwith application dated 31.01.2011 that too before this Forum. So, the complaint is pre-mature and the claim is under process. The complainant has submitted the report on 18.12.2010 Ex.C-7. The complainant has also handed over the key to the opposite parties in the Forum only. 9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that all the required documents except untraceable report have been submitted by the complainant alongwith his claim Form. The untraceable report alongwith key has been submitted in the Forum. The complainant is entitled to get the IDV of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. When all the formalities are completed, the opposite parties are directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. The complainant will transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of the Insurance Company within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the opposite parties will pay the amount of Insurance within next 30 days from the date of transfer of ownership of the motorcycle. Compliance of this order as a whole be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non compliance, interest @ 9% p.a. will yield on the insured amount i.e.Rs.35,000/- till its realization. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 23.05.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
