Haryana

Ambala

CC/150/2017

Som Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Iffco Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

RKS Chandel

05 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                        Complaint No.150 of 2017.

                                        Date of institution:- 19.05.2017.

                                        Date of decision: - 05.07.2018.

Som Lal (Aged 59 years) son of Late Sh.Prabhu Ram, resident of village Baindi, Tehsil- Radaur District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                           ...Complainant.

                Versus

1.The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office “IFFCO sadan”, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its CMD/Chairperson/Authorized person/Signatory.

 

2.The Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch/Servicing Office: # 6339 2^nd Floor, Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.

 

3.Sh.Satbir Singh son of Sh.Jangsher Singh (Authorised agent hving ID No.13000785 Office The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Branch/ Serving Office # 2^nd Floor, Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) Service through its Branch Manager;

 

IInd Address:

Sh.Satbir Singh son of Sh.Jangsher Singh, (Authorized Agent having ID No.13000785) resident of village Khandwa, Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana);

 

4.Sh.Jagjit Singh Sethi, (Authorized Surveyor/Investigator), Of/O/O The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch/Servicing Office: # 6330 2^nd Floor Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana); Service through its Branch Manager.

 

IInd Address:

Sh.Jagjit Singh Sethi (Authorized Surveyor/Investigator), General Insurance Claims, resident of flat No.206, Tower-8 SBP Homes Exton-III, Sector 126, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) mobile No.09417007015

                                                            …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

                Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.        

                            

Present: -  Sh.R.K.S.Chandel, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.Mohinder Bindal, Advocate for OP Nos. 1 & 2.                      Sh.S.P.Singh, Advocate for Op No.3.                                         OP No.4 given up.

                       

Order

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.HR-02W-1948 and the same was got insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.3HXYRVC P400 02163068 having validity from 25.04.2015 to 24.04.2016  through OP No.3 on making the payment of premium to the tune of Rs.964/-. The son of the complainant namely Sumit Kumar parked the vehicle in front of SCO No.21 Sector 11, Panchkula and when he returned back after his work the motor cycle was not found there. He got lodged DDR No.1500 on the same day i.e. 10.02.2016 and lateron the police had registered the case of theft of motor cycle bearing FIR No.64 dated 17.02.2016 under Section 379 IPC PS Sector-5, Panchkula. The complainant also intimated the OP Nos.1 to 3 and also submitted the relevant documents with them through OP No.3. The insurance company deputed the surveyor who assessed much less market value of Rs.35,000/- of motor cycle in question by submitting false, arbitrary and frivolous report. The complainant made correspondence to the OPs and also visited several times and also submitted untraced report dated 31.12.2016 to the Op No.1 as per its demand but it prolonging the mater on one pretext or the other. The complainant felt surprise on receiving of rejection of his claim vide letter dated 06.03.2017 on the ground that 07 days delay in lodging the FIR and 09 days delay in intimating to ITGI. The rejection has been made illegally and in arbitrarily manner. The complainant has suffered financial loss due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CA, Annexure B and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                     On notice Op Nos.1 & 2 filed their joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, territorial jurisdiction, concealment of material facts etc. have been taken.  The complainant himself is responsible for the non-payment of the claim. As a matter of fact the reported claim No.36526538 of the complainant on receipt of intimation on 19.02.2016 was duly entertained in due course without getting into the aspect of its maintainability due to late intimation but after scrutinizing and elaborating the whole facts, records and evidence the competent authority repudiated the claim legally within the ambit and purview of the terms and conditions due to the late intimation of 9 days vide letter dated 06.03.2017. The claim of the complainant was also even not maintainable for non-standard basis. No DDR has been lodged with the police rather the son of the complainant made a formal call to police No.100 about the missing of motor cycle and he never tried to lodge a proper FIR about the occurrence of theft. The intimation to the OP No.1 was sent on 19.02.2016. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2 as the complainant himself has violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy but despite that he was given opportunity to explain about the late intimation. The complainant was duly intimated about the fate of the complaint. The complainant has made the Op No.3 & 4 as party in order to create jurisdiction of this Forum. Other contents have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             OP No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as concealment of material facts, locus standi, jurisdiction of this Forum and cause of action etc. Other contentions have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Op No.4 has been given up by learned counsel for the complainant vide order dated 22.05.2017 by making his separate statement. In evidence, the appearing OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RW3/A, documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9/A.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.             Undisputedly, the motor cycle of the complainant bearing No.HR02W-1948 was insured with OP No.1 & 2 vide insurance policy Annexure C2 having validity for the period from 25.04.2015 to 24.04.2016. The motor cycle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the policy as is evident through documents Annexure C3 i.e. copy of DDR/intimation to police and Annexure C4 copy of FIR. The police had submitted the untraced report Annexure C5. The OP Nos.1 & 2 have repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of about 7 days in lodging the FIR on 17.02.2016 whereas the incident was occurred on 10.02.2016 and there was delay to ITGI on 19.02.2016 after a delay of about 9 days.  The theft was taken place on 10.02.2016 and there may be delay in lodging the FIR as well as in intimating to the insurance company but perusal of Annexure C3 i.e. copy of DDR / intimation to the police reveals that the intimation was given on the day of occurrence, therefore, it was the duty of the police authorities to get the FIR registered immediately for which the complainant cannot be blamed.  It is strange that the Op Nos.1 & 2 in their joint reply have admitted that there is one circular of IRDA about settling the claims on non-standard basis in certain cases, therefore, it is not understandable as to why the insurance company had repudiated the claim of the complainant in toto without taking care the financial loss, mental agony and harassment of the customer despite the fact that the theft was occurred during the subsistence of the policy. Moreover, the insurance company has also not settled the claim on 90 % as mentioned in the consent letter / Annexure R9 and even the insurance company has failed to explain this point as this notice was tendered by OP. As per Annexure R9 i.e. consent letter the complainant was agreed to accept 90 % of less policy excess as full and final but there is no explanation on the case file as to why the insurance company has not accepted the proposal. Though in this very document the complainant has mentioned that due to delay intimation to insurance because I have no knowledge about missing of motor cycle information to insurance company immediately. It appears that the insurance company in this way of that way wants to avoid the genuine claim of the complainant by taking the advantage of statement made by the complainant bonafidely in Annexure R9. The insurance company is not supposed to earn profit/premium from the customer as it is its prime duty to indemnify the claim for the loss if causes during the subsistence of the policy. Moreover, the condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.

6.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the insurance company has wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant and the repudiation letter dated 06.03.2017 is hereby quashed. The present complaint is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs.3000/- and the OPs directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 21,600/-  ( being 90 % of the IDV as per consent letter Annexure R9) to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.

 

 Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 05.07.2018

 

 

                                                               

                   PUSHPENDER KUMAR                                   D.N. ARORA                                    MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT