| Final Order / Judgement | - IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Manager and IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company Limited through its Manager-opposite parties No.1 to 3, respectively, have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby the complaint preferred by Surender Kumar son of Des Raj, was allowed.
- Vide impugned order, the District Consumer Forum directed opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.7,30,000/- to the complainant as insured value of the vehicle in question with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for litigation expenses.
- According to the complainant, he was owner of truck make Tata Motors Ltd. bearing Chassis No.426031LSZ744736, Engine No.B59145907QK62615794 and got insured the same from opposite parties No.1 to 3 by way of policy/certificate valid from 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014 and financed with opposite parties No.4 and 5. In the midnight of 13.10.2014/14.10.2014, the truck of the complainant was stolen from the jurisdiction of Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. In this regard, FIR No.400 dated 14.10.2014 under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station, Nissing, District, Karnal on the statement of the complainant against unknown person. The complainant raised a claim of the amount of the vehicle and also furnished requisite documents in this regard with opposite parties No.1 to 3. The complainant and his family were fully depended upon the income of the said vehicle and after the theft of the vehicle, the earning of the complainant stopped. The complainant duly informed opposite parties No.1 to 3 as well as financer of the vehicle in question in this regard after 4-5 days of the incident. An official, namely, Baljit of opposite parties No.1 to 3 approached the complainant and asked him to sign on blank papers for settlement of the claim. Believing the version of the official, namely, Baljit of opposite parties No.1 to 3, the complainant signed those papers. One Bhola, who claimed himself to be the Surveyor of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 also approached the complainant and stated that the company had received intimation qua theft of the vehicle and collected copies of FIR, insurance and other relevant documents from the complainant. After waiting for sufficient time, the complainant visited the office of opposite parties No.1 to 3 and requested to pay the claim amount of the vehicle in question and also received some other documents in this regard from the complainant but opposite parties did not pay any claim to the complainant. He received a letter dated 10.10.2017 from opposite parties No.1 to 3 vide which the claim of the complainant stood repudiated. As such, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3. Hence, the complainant.
- Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it was pleaded that the claim of the complainant was duly processed but the same was not found payable on the ground that the truck bearing registration No. HR-67A-3765 was stolen in the midnight of 13.10.2014/14.10.2014 as per statement of the complainant, for which, intimation to this effect was given to the opposite parties on 23.10.2014 i.e. after a delay of about 10 days. There was clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy. Moreover, the Investigator M/s Bhola & Associates was deputed for investigation and had written letters to the complainant on 17.03.2015 and 07.10.2015 for documents and information but no response was received and various letters were also written by the company to the complainant asking for documents and information which the complainant had never completed. The Investigator in his report had also concluded on the basis of the driver’s statement which was counter signed by insured wherein he stated that no outside lock was fitted on the cabin doors. Hence, he latched driver side door by pushing up driver side window shutter from outside and entering his hand from the driver side window, which was gross negligence on the part of the complainant. Hence, claim was not maintainable. There was also clear violation of condition No.4 of the policy. The truck in question was a commercial vehicle from where the complainant was also earning his livelihood by transporting the goods from one place to another against charging of fare and it was the only source of earning of the complainant. The claim was thoroughly examined and considered on merits but was not found payable. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, as there was violation of condition No.1 as well as condition No.4 of the policy knowingly and intentionally. There was delay of 10 days in intimating the alleged loss to the opposite parties and the complainant had not taken steps to safeguard the truck from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3. The other allegations levelled by the complainant were denied and prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
- Opposite parties No.4 and 5 filed their joint written version stating therein that the complainant had mis-joined opposite parties No.4 and 5 as a party as the case of the complainant was only against the insurance company. The complainant was only the hypothecated owner of the truck in question and any relief/compensation or any amount regarding the indemnity of the said stolen vehicle by the insurer of the said vehicle be passed against the insurance company. The matter between the complainant and opposite parties No.4 and 5 regarding loan amount settled and NOC has already been issued to the complainant on 07.12.2017 and claim, if, any be awarded in favour of the complainant against the insurance company. The other allegations made in the complaint were denied and prayer made for dismissal of the complaint against them.
- In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit Exhibit C2 and documents Exhibit C1 and Exhibit C3 to Exhibit C5 whereas opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit Exhibit RW1/A of Rajiv Ranjan, affidavit Exhibit RW2/A of Sonu Bhola and documents Exhibit R1 to Exhibit R15 while opposite parties No.4 and 5 tendered in evidence affidavit Exhibit RW1/A of Mohinder Kapoor, SPA and documents Exhibit R1 and Exhibit R2.
- After hearing counsel for the parties and on appraisal of the evidence brought on the record, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint as mentioned above.
- Having heard counsel for the appellants, the State Commission finds that the truck in question was insured with opposite parties No.1 to 3 and it was stolen during the subsistence of the policy. FIR in this regard was registered at Police Station, Nissing, Karnal. Intimation regarding theft was given to opposite parties No.1 to 3. The truck was stolen during the intervening night of 13/14.10.2014 and FIR got registered by the complainant on 14.10.2014 itself. There was thus no delay in lodging the FIR regarding theft of the vehicle in question. Intimation regarding theft was given to the opposite parties after 4-5 days and in view of the same opposite parties No.1 to 3 met the complainant and got his signatures on blank papers on the pretext of getting the theft claim. Intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given on 23.10.2014 i.e. after a delay of above 10 days. However, that might itself would not sufficient to make the complainant ineligible for receiving the claimed amount. As per the IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011, genuine claims should not be denied on the ground of late intimation and late submission of documents.
- There is no material available on the file to prove that there was no outside lock on the cabin door except report submitted by the Investigator. The complainant therefore did not violate the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
- The truck in question was financed by the complainant with opposite parties No.4 and 5. Opposite parties No.4 and 5 have stated that the complainant had cleared the entire financed amount and nothing was due against him.
- In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
- Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
- The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification but in accordance with rules subject to appeal/revision, if any.
- A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
- File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
| |
