State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Preetam Singh vs Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company ... on 4 December, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A,CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1101 of 2022
Date of institution : 15.12.2022
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Date of decision : 04.12.2025
Preetam Singh aged 66 years S/o Natha Singh r/o Ward No.16, House
No.216, Dera Bhag Singh, Cheeka Tehsil Guhla Kaithal.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited, Service
Office: # 5C/1, Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road,
Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. Shastri Nagar,
near Railway Crossing, Ludhiana through its Divisional Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Sangrur in RBT/CC/18/210
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. I.S. Kooner, Advocate
For respondents : Sh. Parvez Chugh, Advocate with
Sh. N.S.Hora, Advocate
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by the
appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by FA No.1101 of 2022 2 complainant against opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant got insured his vehicle LPT 3118TC bearing registration No.HR-64-8304, from OPs No.1 & 2, vide policy No.97192309 for a period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017. Unfortunately, on 11.03.2017, the vehicle in question, being driven by Gurbax Singh @ Bakhshish Singh, met with an accident at village Khurshipur Chirari Drain, P.S. Maharajpur, District Mandlan (Madhya Pradesh) and was damaged badly. The driver of the vehicle also died in the said accident and an FIR No.97 dated 12.03.2017 U/s 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered at P.S. Maharajpur, District Mandlan (MP). The intimation in this regard was orally given to the local office of the OPs immediately. Thereafter, all the necessary documents were supplied to the OPs and they appointed a surveyor, who visited the spot and also obtained signatures of the complainant and the cleaner on various blank forms/papers for disbursing the claim. The complainant had submitted all the estimate/bills to the OPs amounting to Rs.16,92,987/-. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to settle the insurance claim, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The OPs vide letter dated 12.02.2018 asked the complainant to clarify about some points and the said letter was duly replied by the complainant, vide letter dated 08.03.2018, along FA No.1101 of 2022 3 with all the required documents. However, the OPs despite receiving the required documents, had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 31.03.2018 on the ground that they have not received any response from the complainant. The OPs were duly informed vide reply dated 08.03.2018, that the name of the Driver was Gurbax Singh @ Bakhshish Singh son of Sewa Singh and the said fact has also been mentioned in the charge sheet submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandlan (MP). The complainant has nowhere mentioned the name of his driver as 'Ranjit Singh' and if his name is mentioned by him, then the same is an inadvertent mistake or result of a communication gap. The OPs also asked the complainant to provide the copy of weight slip in support of load challan. The complainant duly clarified to the OPs that there were two vehicles bearing Registration No.HR-64-8304 and HR 64-8592 belonging to the complainant and he might have submitted two challans to the OPs. The complainant further stated that the points raised by the surveyor of the OPs, were duly clarified but still they repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OPs, to pay the claim amount of Rs.16,92,987/- and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply, and contested the complaint by raising certain preliminary objections, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, OPs No.1 & 2 stated that the FA No.1101 of 2022 4 complainant had intimated one own damage claim with regard to the accident of the insured vehicle under the policy in question and the OPs deputed IRDA approved independent surveyor 'Sh. Ashim Khaira, Surveyor and Loss Assessor' for spot survey, who submitted his report dated 24.03.2017. Thereafter, the OPs deputed IRDA approved independent Surveyor Sh. Vijay Bansal, M/s Bansal & Company, who observed that the vehicle was over loaded for 11110 Kgs. As per RC of the vehicle, gross vehicle weight was 31000 Kgs and unladen weight was 7320 Kgs, means the vehicle was permitted to carry weight of 23,680 Kgs. The insured provided copy of 2 GR's for accidental vehicle i.e. bearing GR No.12090 dated 09.03.2017 weighing 20040 Kgs and GR No.12088 dated 09.03.2017 weighing 14750 Kgs. As such, the vehicle was overloaded by 11110 Kgs weight, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further as per claim intimation, the name of the driver was Ranjit Singh, but as per the police report, the name of the driver was Gurbakhshish Singh. The surveyor has demanded documents through various letters but the complainant failed to respond to the same. However, the reply submitted by the complainant was neither satisfactory nor complete. As the complainant failed to complete the requirements, the OPs left with no option but to close the claim as "No claim", vide letter dated 31.03.2018. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led their evidence before the District Commission in support of their respective contentions and the District FA No.1101 of 2022 5 Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parites and gone through the written arguments and record of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the District Commission wrongly, illegally and without appreciating the facts and submission made by the appellant/complainant, dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel argued that one of the primary contention of the respondents/OPs to decline the claim is that as per claim intimation, the name of driver was Ranjit Singh, however, as per police report, the name of the Driver was Gurbakshish Singh. But the District Commission has failed to take notice of the fact that no such claim intimation is placed on record by the respondents/OPs. Rather the OPs themselves placed on record copy of spot survey, wherein it has been categorically mentioned the name of driver as Baksees Singh, who was driving the insured vehicle and died in the said accident. The District Commission has also ignored the fact that the version of claim intimation containing the name of driver as 'Ranjit Singh' surfaced for the first time in the final survey report dated 31.03.2018, however, no source of this information regarding claim intimation is evident either from the report or the documents produced by the insurance company. Moreover, the FIR was registered by the Police against the driver of the insured vehicle i.e. FA No.1101 of 2022 6 Sh. Gubaksh Singh@Bakshish Singh. The learned counsel further argued that the District Commission has erred in holding that the vehicle was overloaded for 11110 Kgs at the time of accident. The District Commission has failed to take notice of the fact that in the receipt Ex.C-10, apart from the reference of vehicle No.HR-64-8304, there is also reference of vehicle No.HR-64-8592. It is the specific case of the complainant that he is owner of both the above vehicles and both the vehicles were loaded with goods from the same consignee on the same day and both these receipts were supplied to the insurance company. The learned counsel further argued that even otherwise, though not admitted, if presumed that the insured vehicle was in fact overloaded, the same cannot be per-se reason for rejection of claim. The District Commission wrongly held that the appellant/complainant failed to supply the demanded documents to the surveyor, whereas in response to letter dated 12.02.2018 issued by the surveyor, the appellant/complainant had replied to the same through his counsel, vide reply dated 08.03.2018. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents/OPs has argued that the District Commission has fairly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as well as provisions of the motor vehicle Act. The learned counsel has further argued that the main ground of repudiation of the claim is that the appellant/complainant did not provide various documents such as weight slip or any document in FA No.1101 of 2022 7 support of load challan and other documents supporting the situation of the alleged incident. Moreover, the vehicle was overloaded by 11110 kgs and the name of the driver also differ, as in the intimation provided to the police the driver's name was mentioned as Gurbakshish Singh, whereas the driver's name intimated to the respondents/OPs for the purpose of claim was Ranjit Singh. The appellant/complainant has not provided any explanation that how the name of driver is different. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
10. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant got insured his vehicle LPT 3118TC bearing registration No.HR-64-8304, from OPs No.1 & 2, vide policy No.97192309 for a period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017(Ex.C-3). The vehicle in question met with an accident during subsistence of the policy and an FIR No.97 dated 12.03.2017 U/s 279, 337, 304A IPC was registered at P.S. Maharajpur, District Mandlan (MP) (Ex.C-4). The intimation regarding the said incident was given to the respondents/OPs, who appointed a surveyor for spot survey and further appointed an investigator to investigate the claim of the appellant/complainant. The complainant alleged that he submitted all the requisite documents as well as estimate/bills to the OPs amounting to Rs.16,92,987/- for settlement of his claim, but the OPs repudiated the claim vide letter dated 31.03.2018 ( Ex.C-9) on the ground that they have not received any response from the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents/OPs, the FA No.1101 of 2022 8 appellant/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the same the appellant/complainant preferred the present appeal.
11. The grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that one of the primary contention of the respondents/OPs to decline the claim is that as per claim intimation the name of driver was Ranjit Singh, whereas as per police report, the name of the Driver was Gurbakshish Singh @ Bakhshish Singh. But the District Commission has failed to take notice of the fact that no such claim intimation is placed on record by the respondents/OPs mentioning the name of driver as 'Ranjit Singh'. Rather the OPs themselves placed on record copy of spot survey, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the name of driver is Baksees Singh. On the other hand, the case of the respondents/OPs is that in the intimation provided to the police, while recording the FIR, the driver's name was mentioned as Gurbakshish Singh, whereas the driver's name intimated to the respondents/OPs for the purpose of claim was Ranjit Singh. The appellant/complainant has not provided any explanation that how the name of driver is different. To determine this controversy we have perused the pleadings, evidence placed on record by the parties as well as the impugned order. A perusal of repudiation letter dated 31.03.2018 (Ex.C-4), shows that the respondents/OPs have mainly repudiated the claim as 'No Claim' on the ground that the appellant/complainant had not provided the requisite documents as well as clarification to the queries raised by them vide various correspondence/letters. To rebut the said allegations raised by the FA No.1101 of 2022 9 respondents/OPs, the appellant/complainant has placed reliance on the reply dated 08.03.2018 (Ex.C-8), sent through his counsel Sh. Vikas Mittal, Advocate to Mr. Vijay Bansal, C/o Bansal & Company, Valuers, Surveyors and Loss Assessors. From the perusal of the said reply dated 08.03.2018, we find that the counsel of the appellant/complainant in para No.2(c) has categorically replied to the query raised by the respondents/OPs regarding the name of driver of the insured vehicle. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced as under:-
"2 (c) In reply to para No.3 of your letter, it is hereby brought to your notice that the name of the driver is Gurbax Singh @ Bakhshish Singh son of Sewa Singh and this fact has also find mentioned in the charge sheet submitted in the Court of Sh. KM Ahmed, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandlan (Madhya Pradesh). Copy of the same is attached herewith. It is also brought to your notice that nowhere my client has mentioned the name of his driver as Ranjit Singh. If the name of the driver has been wrongly mentioned as Ranjit Singh, then it is an inadvertent mistake or result of a communication gap and the same is required to be rectified. It is again hereby brought to your notice that name of driver of my client is Gurbax Singh @ Bakhshish Singh son of Sewa Singh R/o village Ram Nagar Buna, PS Siwan, District Kaithal (Haryana)"
It is not the case of the respondents/OPs that they never received the above said reply dated 08.03.2018 (Ex.C-8) sent by the appellant/complainant through his counsel. Rather, the respondents/OPs in reply to the para No.9, have themselves stated that no satisfactory and complete reply has been submitted by the complainant. The perusal of FIR No.97 dated 12.03.2017 (Ex.C-4), shows that the insured vehicle was being driven by driver Gurbax Singh FA No.1101 of 2022 10 @ Bakshish Singh, who died on the spot in the said accident. Moreover, the respondents/OPs themselves placed on record copy of spot survey(Ex.OP-11), wherein it has been categorically mentioned the name of driver as Baksees Singh, who was driving the insured vehicle and died in the said accident. The appellant/complainant has categorically answered the query raised by the respondents/OPs qua name of the driver of the insured vehicle, vide reply dated 08.03.2018(Supra). As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents/OPs that the appellant/complainant has failed to clarify the queries raised by them vide various correspondence/letters. The respondents/OPs were well aware that the Gurbax Singh @ Baksees Singh was the driver of the insured vehicle and died on the spot in the said accident, but in order to wriggle out from their liability to settle the claim of the appellant/complainant, they raised false allegation that he intimated them the name of driver as 'Ranjit Singh'. However, no such document has been placed on record by the respondents/OPs, mentioning the name of driver as 'Ranjit Singh'. As such, the plea of the respondents/OPs that there is difference of name of the driver of the insured vehicle, is not tenable and denial of the claim on that ground is not justified. Accordingly, the respondents/OPs are certainly deficient in providing the service to the appellant/complainant. 12 Another ground of appeal raised by the appellant/complainant is that the District Commission has erred in holding that the vehicle was overloaded for 11110 Kgs at the time of accident and it failed to take notice of the fact that in the receipt Ex. C-10, apart from the reference of vehicle No.HR-64-8304, there is also FA No.1101 of 2022 11 reference of vehicle No.HR-64-8592. Moreover, it is the specific case of the appellant/complainant that he is owner of both the above vehicles and both the vehicles were loaded with goods from the same consignee on the same day and both these receipts were supplied to the insurance company. In support of the said version, the appellant/complainant relied on Ex.C-10 & C-11 i.e. copies of GRs No.12090 dated 09.03.2017 and GR No.12088 dated 09.03.2017 respectively. From the perusal of said exhibits, we find that on both these documents under the column 'Lorry number' the vehicle number is mentioned as HR-64-8304, however under the column of 'Additional Information' the vehicle number is mentioned as HR-64-8592. Since, the number of insured vehicle i.e. HR-64-8304 is mentioned on both the said documents, we are inclined to accept the version of the appellant/complainant that the goods were loaded on two different vehicles. The version of the respondents/OPs is that the insured vehicle was overloaded for 11110 Kgs at the time of accident, which violates the terms and condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle. However, as per contents of the FIR, to save a motorcycle, which came in front of the vehicle, the vehicle got overturned and struck into the bridge. As such, the cause of accident in the present case was not overloading of the vehicle. In such an eventuality, the insurance companies are required to settle the claim on Non-Standard Basis. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case titled as "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandewal" 2008(7)SCALE-351, wherein the Hon'ble Court relied upon judgment of "Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. FA No.1101 of 2022 12 Ltd. & Another (2003) 6 SCC 420 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"9. The question then is; can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.
The Honble Apex Court in case Nitin Khandewal (Supra) held that "In a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis." It was further held that "The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insured has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insured. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non- standard basis."
13. The ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd." Civil Appeal No.2703 of 2010, decided on 25.03.2010 is also applicable in FA No.1101 of 2022 13 the present case, wherein it was held that "From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached." It is pertinent to mention that Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented legislation, which encourages adoption of liberal construction in favour of the consumer and above said judgment of the Apex Court are in favour of the consumers. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has also relied on the latest judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of 'Nirbhay Singh Chauhan Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company' passed in Revision Petition No.2241 of 2019 decided on 17.08.2020, whereby it has been held that State Commission has rightly allowed the claim on non-standard basis in the event of overloading of the vehicle.
14. In view of the ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases of Nitin Khandewal and Amalendu Sahoo (Supra), as well as the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of 'Nirbhay Singh Chauhan(Supra)' the appellant/complainant is entitled to 75% of the claim. The District Commission has overlooked the said aspect and has wrongly dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.
15. So far as the quantum of claim, in the present case, is concerned, neither any claim form has been placed on record by both the parties nor the surveyor has assessed the quantum of loss caused FA No.1101 of 2022 14 to the vehicle. The appellant/complainant has submitted in his complaint that he supplied the bills/estimate to the tune of Rs.16,92,987/- with the respondents/OPs and placed on record the same as Ex.C-6. From the perusal of said bills/estimate (Ex.C-6), we find that the authorized service center i.e. Anand Motor workshop, TATA Motors, has prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs.12,01,587/- for repair of insured vehicle. The appellant/complainant has also placed on record certain other bills/estimates from various local service centers, which we are not inclined to accept as they are not the authorized service centers for repair of the vehicle. Accordingly, in such an eventuality, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents/OPs are liable to pay 75% of the repair estimate prepared by the authorized service center i.e. 12,01,587/-, which comes to Rs.9,01,190.25 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 31.03.2018 till realization. Since, the appellant/complainant suffered harassment and mental agony in the hands of OPs/insurance company for not settling his genuine claim on non-standard basis, he is also entitled for lumpsum amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is liable to be modified.
16. Sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the appeal of the appellant/complainant and the impugned order of the District Commission is hereby modified with the following directions to the respondents/Opposite parties:-
a) Respondents/OPs are directed to pay 75% of Rs.
12,01,587/-( Estimate of authorized service center), FA No.1101 of 2022 15 which comes to Rs.9,01,190.25 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 31.03.2018 till realization;
b) Respondents/OPs are also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the appellant/complainant.
17. Compliance of the above directions issued to respondents/OPs are to be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 04, 2025 (Dv)