Haryana

Ambala

CC/166/2018

Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Service Office Iffco Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 166 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   25.05.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   13.12.2019.

 

Chand son of Randhir Singh R/o Village Nara, Tehsil Madlauda, Distt. Panipat.

 

                                                                              …. Complainant.                                                              Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Service Office, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001.
2. The General Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.2B & C, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, 160002.
3. Sandeep Sikka, Agent No. 79000403, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

OP No.3 given up.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following direction to them:

1. To release/give the insured amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith upto date interest.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Tata Safari bearing Registration No.HR06-AA-7547, Engine No. 22LDICOR09, Chassis No. MAT403715DNB01777, Model 2013 Colour Black, which was insured with the Company i.e OP No.3 vide Insurance Policy No.1-CA8339M, through OP No.3, for the period from 19.01.2017 to 18.01.2018. The said vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority, Panipat. On 04.05.2017, the said vehicle got stolen from Subharti College, Merrut, U.P. and intimation was sent to the office of the OPs vide reference No.1EXBXAH7, dated 04.05.2017  and an FIR No.313, dated 04.05.2017, under Section 379 IPC got registered in the police station Transportnagar, Distt. Merrut, U.P. Vide letter dated 01.08.2017, he intimated the registering authority Panipat, not to transfer the said vehicle. On 28.09.2017, he received the untraced report from the Hon’ble Court of Learned ACJM Merrut. After receiving the untraced report & collecting the required documents on 28.12.2017, he contacted the OP No.3. The OP No.3 advised him to deposit the requisite documents  with the OP no.2. On 29.12.2017, he deposited the requisite documents in the office of the OP No.2 situated at Chandigarh and requested to pay the claim amount, but its officials did not pay any heed to his request. By not paying his genuine claim the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and has filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that as per the RC, the stolen vehicle was insured with the National Insurance company Limited vide comprehensive company policy No.34524353NJ4 Valid from 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017, covering the loss of theft. Complainant was asked to supply the copy of said insurance policy. Vide letter dated 18.09.2018, complainant was asked, but he failed to provide the same. The investigator who investigated the matter in this case has observed that it seems to be a case of multiple insurance. As per complainant theft took place on 04.05.2017 and he reported the matter on the same day. The complainant had not been able to identify the Barber shop from where the key of the vehicle got stolen and he is not able to explainable on this issue. It is further stated that the Court before passing the untraced report, must have recorded the statement of complainant and he was satisfied with the untraced report.  After investigating the matter the insurance company had sent a letter dated 18.09.2018, but he failed to give proper reply to the Company. Rest of allegations made in the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.

3.                The complainant had given up the OP No.3 through his statement recorded on 08.08.2018. Accordingly, he was given up vide order dated 08.08.2018 by this Forum.

4.                Complainant along with learned counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-16 & Annexure CW3/A to CW3/C and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Authorized Signatory # Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, Plot No.2 B & C, Sector-28A, Chandigarh and affidavit of Shri Vikas Kumar, Insurance Investigators & Consultants # B-42, 2^nd Floor, Shankar Garden Vikaspuri, New Delhi as Annexure RA and RB respectively alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-15, Annexure OP1/16 and R-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case.

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 vehemently argued that as per condition No.6 of the Insurance Policy, complainant is not entitled to get any claim because he had also taken another policy from the National Insurance Company Ltd. having validity from 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017. However, at the time of taking of policy in question he did not disclose the said fact to the OP No.1 and 2.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in fact the complainant had taken the insurance policy from the National Insurance Company at the time of the purchase of the vehicle in question having validity from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014. In the Form No.24 (Motor Vehicle Register) generated manually, the period of validity of the Insurance has rightly been mentioned as 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014. Whereas, in the Form No.24, generated by computer the validity period of insurance has wrongly been mentioned as 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017. This fact that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company for the period from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014 and not from 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017, as alleged by the OP No.1 further got fortified from the statement dated 27.08.2019, of Shri Jasmer Singh, Administrative Officer O/o National Insurance Co. Divisional Office, Panipat, (hereinafter referred to as NIC). The above said Administrative Officer of NIC has deposed that as per computer record the TATA Safari having registration No.HR06AA-7547 was not insured with NIC vide policy No.34524353 NJ4 for the period from 07.07.2016 to 06.07.2017. Even, Shri Sachin Sharma, Motor Vehicle Registration Clerk O/o SDM/Registering Authority, Panipat vide statement dated 10.10.2019, had deposed that the  vehicle in question was registered with Registering Authority, Panipat on 22.04.2013 and as per manual record/register the vehicle was insured by National Insurance Company vide cover note No.345243534, having validity from 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014 and the registration certificate is valid upto 28.03.2028. He further deposed that the Insurance Validity entry is only mentioned at the time of registration of the vehicle. By not paying the  claim to the complainant the OPs No.1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service.

                   It may be stated here that from the statements/documents referred to above it is abundantly clear that it was only on account of typographical error in the Form No.24 (computer print), the OPs No.1 and 2 are trying to take advantage. Thus, the act of the OPs No.1 and 2 needs to be deprecated. In the face of clear cut statement given by Administrative Officer O/o National Insurance Co. Divisional Office, Panipat, and Clerk of the Registering Authority, Panipat, the plea of the OPs that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim on account of reasons aforesaid is not sustainable. In this view of the mater, we do not hesitate to conclude that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

                   Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification?

                   From the copy of insurance policy Annexure C-1, it is evident that the IDV of the vehicle in question is of Rs.6,50,000/-, therefore the insurance company i.e. OP No.1 & 2 are liable to indemnify the complainant for the said amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed in the following manner:-     

          (i)      To pay Rs.6,50,000/- i.e. IDV of the vehicle in question to                the complainant.

          (ii)     To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony                             and physical harassment suffered by him.

          (iii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs No.1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.05.2018, till its realization.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 13.12.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President