State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abdul Razzak S/O Saljaim Khan vs Iffico Tokio Gen. Ins. Ltd. Through ... on 30 May, 2019
1 jkT; miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k vk;ksx] cSap la- 1] jktLFkku t;iqj vihy la[;k %& 85@2017 Abdul Razzak vihykFkhZ cuke Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
izR;FkhZ le{k % ekuuh; Jh dey dqekj ckxMh] lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ ekuuh; lnL; Jherh ehuk esgrk mifLFkr %& vihykFkhZZ dh vkSj ls Jh dey pefM+;k vf/koDRkk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls Jh o:.k pkSgku vf/koDrk vkns'k fnukad 30 ebZ] 2019 jkT; vk;ksx jktLFkku t;iqj ¼}kjk Jh dey dqekj ckxM+h] lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ ;g vihy Abdul Razzak dh vksj ls Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. ds fo:) ftyk miHkksDrk fookn izfrrks"k eap] Hkjriqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11 tuojh] 2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gSA izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd ifjoknh us Lojkt 144 ,Q bZ VsDVj jftLVªs'ku la[;k vkj ts 05 vkj , 4168 dk chek foi{kh la[;k 2 ls fnukad 1@6@10 ls 31@5@11 rd dh vof/k ds fy, 3]10]000@& :0 dk djk;k 2 FkkA fnukad 12@9@10 dh jkf= dks ifjoknh vius xkWo foyx ls dLck dkeka mDr okgu ls vk;k rFkk okgu dks iw.kZ lqjf{kr fLFkfr esa j[kk fd;kA fnukad 13@9@10 dks tc ifjoknh us okgu dks vius xkWo ys tkus ds fy, vk;k rks mDr VsDVj Vªksyh ekStwn ugh Fkh ftls dksbZ vKkr pksj pqjk dj ys x;kA ifjoknh us okgu pksjh dh lwpuk rRdky iqfyl Fkkuk dkeka esa izLrqr dh ftls mUgksus ntZ djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k ftl ij ifjoknh us fnuakd 14@9@10 dks U;k;ky; esa bLrxklk izLrqr djus ij U;k;ky; dh vuqefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk dkeka esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 576 fnukad 6@10@10 ntZ dh x;hA ifjoknh us mDr okgu dh pksjh tkus dh lwpuk rRdky gh tfj;s nwjHkk"k foi{kh la[;k 2 dks izsf"kr dh rFkk chek nkok ds lEcU/k esa leLr vkSipkfjdrk;s iwjh dhA iqfyl Fkkuk dkeak }kjk ifjoknh dh fjiksVZ ij ckn vuqla/kku vne irk eky eqyfteku esa ,Q vkj la[;k 343@10 U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tks U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 1@7@11 dks Lohdkj dh x;hA ysfdu blls iwoZ gh foi{khx.k us pksjh dh lwpuk foyEo ls fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij chek nkok dks fcuk ;qfD;qDr dkj.k ds fnukad 3@3@11 dks fujLr dj fn;k tks mudk lsoknks'k gSA vUr esa ifjoknh us izkFkZuk dh gS fd ifjoknh dks foi{khx.k ls chek Dyse dh jkf'k 3]10]000@& :0 e; C;kt fnyk;s tkos rFkk ekufld larki dh {kfriwfrZ o ifjokn O;; fnyk;k tkosA foi{khx.k us tokc is'k dj dFku fd;k gS fd ifjoknh us foi{kh dks okgu ds pksjh gksus dh lwpuk nwjHkk"k ij vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls rRdky ugh nhA ifjoknh }kjk vius dfFkr okgu ds pksjh dh lwpuk fnukad 9@10@10 dks yxHkx ,d ekg dh nsjh ls nh Fkh tks chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZ dk mya?ku gSA ifjoknh us vius okgu dh pksjh dh lwpuk dfFkr pksjh fnuakd 12@9@10 ds 24 fnu dh vlk/kkj.k nsjh ls fnuakd 6@10@10 dks iqfyl Fkkuk dkeka dks nh Fkh tks fd chek ikWfylh dh izeq[k 'krZ dk mya?ku gSA blfy, ifjoknh dksbZ {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gSA ifjoknh us okgu ds Qk;usUlj dks i{kdkj ugh cuk;k tks fd vko';d FkkA foi{khx.k }kjk dksbZ lsoknks"k dkfjr ugh fd;k x;k gSA vUr esa ifjokn e; gtkZ [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA cgl lquh ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA 3 ifjoknh dk VªsDVj fnukad 01-06-2010 ls 31-05-2011 rd 3 yk[k 10 gtkj :- dk chek Fkk fnukad 12-09-2010 dks jkf= VªsDVj pksjh gks x;kA fnukad 13-09-2010 dks Fkkus esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokuh pkgh tks ntZ ugha dhA fnukad 14-09-2010 dks tfj;s bLrxklk U;k;ky; ls ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djok;h x;hA VªsDVj ugha feykA chek daiuh us chek Dyse bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dj fn;k fd daiuh dks nsjh ls lwpuk nh x;hA IV (2015) CPJ 349 (NC) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V/S SHILPA CLOTH HOUSE esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) - Insurance - Fire accident - Stocks damaged - Loss suffered - FIR lodged - Surveyor appointed - Claim repudiated - Non-submission of documents - Deficiency in service - District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission partly allowed appeal - Hence revision - Contention, claim repudiated on account of non-furnishing of documents - Not accepted - Plea of petitioner company cannot be accepted in view of FIR lodged by complainant soon after incident in which details of incident were reported
- District Forum deputed a local Commissioner to conduct spot enquiry in presence of both parties - Delay in sending intimation in writing is not sufficient to deny either occurrence of incident or reimbursement of loss suffered - No fault with findings of facts returned by two Fora.
IV (2014 )CPJ 62 (NC) NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. V/S KULWANT SINGH esa
ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) - Insurance - Theft - Delay in intimation
- Surveyor appointed - Claim repudiated - Deficiency in service - District Forum dismissed Complaint - State Commission allowed appeal - Hence revision - Insurance Company should not have repudiated claim, merely on account of delay in bringing theft to its 4 knowledge, particularly when there was absolutely no delay in lodging FIR with police - No prejudice caused to Insurance Company on account of 4/5 days delay in intimation of theft - Plausible explanation given by insured for delay - Repudiation not justified.
IV (2014 ) CPJ 255 (NC) SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATON LTD. & ANR. V/S GOMTI DEVI & ORS. esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) - Insurance - Death claim - Delay in intimation - Claim repudiated - Alleged deficiency in service - District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission dismissed appeal - Hence revision - As per policy, petitioners are liable pay Rs. 1,00,000 as ordered by District Forum - Petitioners want to get rid of their liability - Petitioners have made a vain attempt to lead gullible people up the garden path.
IV (2012 )CPJ 107 (NC) SHANKAR CHAKRAWARTI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. esa ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx us fuEu fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS %& Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (b) - Insurance - Theft of vehicle
- Surveyor appointed - Loss assessed - Claim repudiated - Alleged deficiency in service - District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission partly allowed appeal - Hence revision - Theft of vehicle was committed by driver and cleaner who were complainant's own employees - Delay in lodging FIR - Information was given to Insurance Company before lodging the FIR - State Commission has meticulously checked record with precision and clarity--Reduced value of Insurance Policy to 75% ekuuh; jk"Vªh; vk;ksx }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dh jks'kuh esa ns[ks rks ifjoknh dk VªsDVj jkf= esa pksjh gks x;k vxys fnu Fkkus x;k ogkWa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ ugha dhA mlls vxys fnu tfj;s U;k;ky; bLrxklk is'k djds eqdnek 5 ntZ djok fn;k] ;|fi ifjoknh us dgk gS fd lwpuk nwjHkk"k ij rqjUr ns nh FkhA ;fn lwpuk 24 fnu nsjh ls Hkh nh x;h] rks Hkh mldk Dyse iw.kZr% [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk cfYd uksu LVs.MMZ csfll ij 75 izfr'kr Dyse fn;k tkuk pkfg,A fo)ku ftyk eap us tks ifjokn [kkfjt fd;k gS] og lgh ugh gSA fo)ku ftyk eap dk vkns'k fnukad 11 tuojh 2017 vikLr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh] ifjoknh dks 3]10]000@&:- dk 75 izfr'kr 2]32]500@&: ¼ v{kjs nkS yk[k cRrhl gtkj ikWap lkS :- ½ ifjokn izLrqfr fnukad 25-06-2012 ls vnk;xh rd 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt lfgr ,oa ekufld larki ds 20]000@&:- ¼ v{kjs chl gtkj :- ½ rFkk ifjokn O;; ds 10]000@& ¼ v{kjs nl gtkj :- ½ vkns'k dh rkjh[k ls nks ekg esa vnk djsAa ¼ ehuk esgrk ½ ¼ dey dqekj ckxMh ½ lnL; lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ @ikBd@