Delhi

North

CC/138/2018

SATBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. SINGH & COMPANY

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 138/2018

In the matter of

Shri Satbir  

S/o Shri Sriram Yadav

R/o D-2, kamaalpur Majra

Stya Vihar, Burari

Delhi-110084                                                                                                                                            ...Complainant

Versus

The Manager

IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited

6^th floor, Ansals Imperial Tower

C-Block, Community Centre

Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028                                                                                                         …Opposite Party

ORDER
21/08/2023

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

          Jurisdiction of this Commission had been invoked by Sh. Satbir, the complainant against, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, with the allegations of deficiency in services. 

1.       Facts as per complaint are that, the complainant is the owner of the truck bearing No.DL 1M 3918 vide certificate of Registration No.0876624     S.No.2005-2006.  The said vehicle was insured by OP vide policy No.99928044 for a period from 10/09/2016 to 09/09/2017 with IDV of Rs.7,20,000/-.  The complainant has paid a premium of Rs.22,496.36 for obtaining the said policy.

2.       It has been stated by the complainant that the insured vehicle was stolen by some unknown person, while it was parked at 41 foota road, near Bakura School, Burari, Delhi which came to the knowledge of the complainant at about 8.00 am on 14/02/2017 for which an eFIR No.004584 was registered. An untraced report was filed by the police on 21/09/2017. 

3.       It has been stated by the complainant that a claim was registered after filing of untraced report vide claim No.36952844.  The complainant submitted requisite documents and the original keys as demanded by the investigator appointed by OP. Acknowledgment dated 19.02.2017, containing the inventories of the items received by the Investigator and the photographs of three keys was issued by the Investigator.

4. The claim was closed as “no claim” vide letter dated 08.01.2018. It has been stated that the investigator had submitted no claim report on baseless and hypothetical ground stating “it seems that the lock of the said vehicle was damaged and was easily accessible with any keys and insured did not take proper security measures to safeguard the said vehicle from loss by changing the locks of the vehicle. The Complainant has alleged that the locks of the insured vehicle were never damaged nor the Complainant had the occasion to change the locks as alleged by the Investigator.

5.       Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim , the Complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OP to pay a sum of Rs.7,20,000/-being the IDV of the insured vehicle; Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses. Therfore,total claim of Rs.9,50,000/- and interest @9% p.a. on the total claim from the date of filing of the claim till realization. 

6.       The complainant has annexed the copy of the Election I Card, copy of certificate of registration, copy of Insurance policy, copy  of certificate of fitness, copy of permit, copy of eFIR dated 14/02/2017, the untraced report dated 06/10/2017, copy of the photographs along with list of documents handed over to the investigator dated. 19/02/2017, the letter dated 08/01/2018 closing the claim of the complainant as “no-claim” and legal notice dated 16/04/2018 has been annexed with the complaint.

7.       Notice of the present complaint was issued to the OP. 

8.       Written statement was filed on behalf of OP.  The repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 08/01/2018 has been admitted.  It has been submitted that the claim was repudiated as there was violation /breach of policy condition No.5 of terms and condition of the contract which is as follows:

“ the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage or to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part of thereofor any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.

9.       It has been admitted that the surveyor was appointed to investigate the incident of theft. The investigator gave conclusion that the claim was not payable due to following reasons:-

1. At the time of investigation insured has provided two keys of the said vehicle and both keys are different from each other and insured had confirmed that he was using both keys for driving the said vehicle. It seems that the lock of the said vehicle was damage and was easily accessible with any keys and insured did not take proper security measures to safeguard the said vehicle from loss by changing the locks of the vehicle.
2. The keys were sent for forensic examination and as per forensic report the groves of the keys are different and belong to different lock. Therefore, based on report it is confirmed that the insured has submitted the fabricated keys to get the claim.

10.     It has been submitted that the facts of the incident are fabricated by the Complainant and the said vehicle was not stolen by any other person but the theft was well organised by the Complainant with the help of other persons to get the claim with malafide intention.  The complainant could not describe the incident properly and the vehicle was not parked in the authorised parking.   

11.     The complainant had submitted three keys out of which one was of petrol tank and the other two of main engine.  The engine keys submitted to the investigator was not same and different from each other.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

12.     OP has annexed the copy of the policy terms and condition with their written statement.  However, in their written statement they have submitted that the Investigator Report and Forensic Examination Report are being annexed as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3.  However, the said documents have not been filed along with their written statement.  

13.     Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant. It has been denied that the complainant was using both keys for driving the said vehicle, both keys were original as apparent from the letter dated 19/02/2017. Rest of the contents of the written statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reaffirmed.

14.     Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the parties.  The complainant has reaffirmed the contents of the complaint and has relied upon the documents annexed with it.  He has got exhibited the copy of Election  I card as Ex.CW-1/1, copy of R/C of the vehicle as Ex.CW-1/2, Copy of Insurance policy as Ex.CW-1/3, copy of fitness as Ex.CW-1/4, copy of permit as Ex.CW-1/5, copy of  untraced report as Ex.CW-1/6, copy of receipt as Ex-CW-1/7, copy of repudiation letter as Ex.CW-1/8, copy of Legal Notice as Ex-CW-1/9, copy of postal receipt as Ex.CW-1/10.

15.     OP has got examined Sh. Shiv Prakash Singh, Senior Executive on their behalf.  The contents of written statement have been reaffirmed.  They have filed the key examination report.

16.     We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the Ld. Counsel for OP.  We have also gone through the written argument filed by both the parties. It is noted that the OP has filed the copy of the repudiation letter dated 08/01/2018 as Annexure-R-1, copy of Policy condition No.4 as Annexure-R-2 and copy of Examination Report of Forensic Lab as Annexuare-R-3 along with the affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Kumar, Forensic Expert, SIFS, Forensic Science Laboratory, with their written arguments.

17.     Factum of theft is not disputed. The complainant is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim vide repudiation letter dated 08/01/2018, wherein the claim has been rejected by OP on the ground of breach of policy terms and conditions wherein it was observed that the complainant has provided two keys of the said vehicle and both the keys are different from each other and the complainant has confirmed that he was using both the keys for driving the said vehicle.  Thus it seems that the lock of the insured vehicle was damaged and was easily accessible with any keys and insured did not take proper security measures to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss by changing the locks of the vehicle and as per the forensic report the groves of both the keys are different and belongs to different locks.  Therefore, insured had submitted fabricated keys.

18.     If we look at the written statement of OP, in para 6, it has been mentioned that complainant had provided 03 keys, one was for petrol tank and the other two keys of main engine.  Similarly, the acknowledgment of investigator dated 19/02/2017 (Ex.CW-1/7) bears the photographs of 03 keys whereas, the Repudiation letter (Ex.CW-1/8) bears mention of only 02 keys.  Even the Forensic Report, which has been filed by OP, it is seen that 03 keys had been sent for examination, which have been marked as S-1, S-2 and S-3 for the purpose of identification. Following are the findings of the forensic expert:-

Key label
S-1	Used	Original
S-2	Unused	Original
S-3	Used	Original

         

S-1 and S-2, are of same dimensions and S-3 has different dimension.  In result and opinion, it has been stated that S-1 and S-3 are not fabricated, further S-1 and S-3 are in-line and S-2 is not in-line with the age of the vehicle.  Therefore, the KEYS MARKED AS S-1 TO S-3 ARE ORIGINAL AND DIFFERENT IN THEIR MORPHOLOGICAL APPEARANCES.  HENCE, BELONG TO DIFFERENT LOCK. Simultaneous reading of Ex.-CW-1/7 and para 6  of written statement along with Forensic Expert Report it is clear that 02 engine keys in original and 01 key for the tank was handed over to the Investigator.

19. Hence, what can be culled out from the above observations is that, S-1 and S-3 are used and S-2, being the spare key has not been used by the complainant(which is a general practice ) . The use of both keys has been denied by the complainant as well. One of the keys from S-1 and S-3 is the engine key and the other one is the tank key, thus the locks are bound to be different. All the 03 keys handed by the complainant are original. Thus, the rejection on the ground that the lock of the said vehicle was damaged and was easily accessible with any keys and insured did not take proper security measures to safeguard the said vehicle from loss by changing the locks of the vehicle, which amounts to breach of policy condition no. 4 of the terms and condition does not hold a valid ground.

20. OP has not placed Investigator Report on record.  Thus, it is clear that the genuine claim of the complainant was rejected due to non-application of mind and the same was done in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. Therefore, we hold OP deficient of services.

          Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of  the present complaint, we direct OP to pay IDV of Rs. 7,20,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of claim till realization.  We further award compensation of Rs.30,000/-, inclusive of litigation expenses.This order be complied with in 30 days from the receipt of order. In case of non compliance, the awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

                 (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

          President