Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/35

Janak Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwinder Singh Sran

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               35 of 2018

Date of Institution:   12.03.2018

Date of Decision :     20.03.2019

 

Janak Raj aged about 68 years s/o Khushi Ram, r/o New Cantt. Road, Street No. 4 ½ , Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Managing Director, Iffco Sadan C-I, District Centre Saket New Delhi-110017.
2. Customer Service Centre, Chandigarh IFTC Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector-28A, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002.
3. SMC Insurance Brokers Ltd. Partap Nagar, Metro Mall, Near Partap Nagar, Metro Station, Partap Nagar, New Delhi-110007.

....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh K S Sran, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh S K Jain, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

              OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                   cc no. 35 of 2018

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim for his stolen vehicle and for further directing OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that scooter of complainant make Suzuki Swish bearing Registration No PB 04Y-5906 was fully insured with OPs vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 68734044 valid for the period from 23.12.2016 to 22.12.2017 and also paid premium of Rs,1744/-. It is submitted that the policy was valid against all kinds of risks including theft. It is submitted that during the subsistence of policy in question, someone stole the vehicle of complainant on 12.07.2017 and FIR No.0168 to this effect was got registered by complainant on 27.07.2017 under Section 379 of IPC in Police Station City Faridkot. Thereafter, complainant lodged his claim regarding theft of his vehicle with Ops and also completed requisite formalities, but his claim was repudiated by OPs vide letter dated 5.12.2017. OPs have illegally and wrongly repudiated the claim of complainant without any cause. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times with request to pass his claim, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental

cc no. 35 of 2018

agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and OP-2 filed written statement wherein admitted that vehicle of complainant was insured with Ops vide policy in question. It is averred that as per report dated 22.11.2017 made by Surveyor, no FIR was got registered by complainant with Police till 22.11.2017 and this fact was also enquired by him from Police Station, Faridkot. Loss was reported to Company on 2.08.2017 after about delay of  21 days. Though as per rules and regulations of policy, loss should have been reported to answering OPs immediately, but complainant caused delay in reporting the matter to them. Moreover, complainant has violated the conditions no. 4 of Insurance Policy as he has been negligent in providing proper care to his vehicle. Complainant has himself mentioned in his statement in writing that at the time of parking the vehicle in question, ignition key was left in ignition point and he left the same unattended.  Thus, leaving the scooter unattended alongwith ignition key  is a gross negligence on the part of complainant. Second key was collected by Investigator and it was

cc no. 35 of 2018

fresh and unused. 1^st original key was lying in the vehicle while it was left unattended, which resulted in making access to thieves for stealing the vehicle from its parking place. Thus, complainant has violated the mandatory terms and conditions of policy in question and left the vehicle unattended. It is averred that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. Answering OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                      Notice issued to OP-3 through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and presumed to be served. Acknowledgment might have been lost or mis-laid in transit. Statutory period expired and when no body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel, and therefore, vide order dated 16.05.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte. However, on 4.07.2018, Sh Jitesh Jha advocate appeared on behalf of OP-3 and filed reply. Same was taken on record. In reply, OP-3 denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer and they have nothing to do with the claim sought by complainant. As per OP-3, complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. After filing the reply, OP-3 never appeared in the Forum.

 

cc no. 35 of 2018

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Ranjan as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 10 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and OP-2 and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

9                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that insured vehicle of complainant was stolen during the validity of insurance period and as per rules he gave due intimation regarding this incident to OPs and also got recorded FIR no. 0168 to this effect on 27.07.2017, but OPs have illegally and unlawfully repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that stolen scooter was negligently parked by complainant at the time of theft. Action of OPs in not making payment of genuine insurance claim on account of theft of his vehicle, amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 and 2 stressed mainly on the point that complainant left the vehicle unattended alongwith

cc no. 35 of 2018

ignition key at ignition point making it possible for thieves to commit theft. This is a gross negligence on the part of complainant as he himself did not provide proper and required care to look after his vehicle. He should have been very cautious and alert while parking his vehicle, but he negligently left his vehicle alongwith key unattended and is himself liable for theft of said vehicle. He has violated the terms and conditions of policy. In his statement before Police  Ex C-5 and in FIR dated 27.07.2017 Ex C-4, complainant has himself mentioned that he left the key of scooter at ignition point. Moreover, complainant has himself stated in documents Ex OP-5 and Ex OP-6 that he parked his vehicle alongwith key near ghanta ghar chowk from where it was found missing. OP-1 and OP-2 also alleged that said incident occurred on 12.07.2017, but complainant got registered FIR to this effect on 27.07.2017 and even did not intimate the OP in time. Intimation to OPs was given after a period of 21 days from the day of occurrence. OPs-1 and 2  sternly argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                            It is observed that complainant did not immediately inform the OPs regarding theft of his vehicle and moreover, there is negligence on the part of complainant in not parking his vehicle carefully and safely. He did not take necessary action of locking his vehicle to safeguard the same. Documents adduced by OPs Ex OP-5 and OP-6 wherein complainant has himself admitted that he left his vehicle alongwith key unattended, are self explanatory. There seems to be no

cc no. 35 of 2018

sdeficiency in service on the part of OPs as complainant cannot be given benefit of his own wrongs. There is no reason for him to seek insurance claim from Ops for his own fault.

  11                                From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by OPs, we are of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. however, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 20.03.2019       

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

Member                         President