State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Misalyar Khan vs Iffco Tokioa on 3 February, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. C/2014/102 1. Misalyar Khan - ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. IFFCO Tokioa - ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Chandra Bhal Srivastava PRESIDING MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh Complaint Case No.102 of 2014 Misalyar KhanS/o- Aliyar KhanR/o 20 Mohlinya, Aonla, District-Bareilly, U.P. .......Complainant. Versus IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 148-IInd Floor, R.C. Auto Mobiles, Opposite DM Residence, Civil Lines, Bareilly- Through the Branch Manager. G.M. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan -C-1 -District Centre- SAKET, NEW DELHI. ......Opposite Parties. Present:- Hon'bleSri C.B. Shrivastav, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Sri Sanjay Kumar, Member.
Hon'ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri O.P. DuvelAdvocate for the Complainant.
Sri Vikram.Soni, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
Date: 16.02-2016 Judgment Sri Mahesh Chand, Member-This complaint has been filed by Sri Misalyar Khan S/o- Aliyar Khan R/o 20 Mohlinya, Aonla, District-Bareilly, U.P. against IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 148-IInd Floor, R.C. Auto Mobiles, Opposite DM Residence, Civil Lines, Bareilly- Through the Branch Managerand Another claiming that he is the owner of the vehicle Tata Truck No HR-55R-2555 financed by Chola Financiars and it is insured with the opposite parties. The other details of the vehicle like engine No Chasis No etc. are mentioned in the complaint. The said truck gutted into fire on 19.4.2013 when the driver Taj Mohammad alias Nanhey was carrying it loaded with old empty jute gunny bags from Gandhi Dham (Gujarat) to Chandausi (U.P.). On the way the empty gunny bags loaded on the truck came in contact with the high voltage electric line when it was passing through under it and caught fire and turned into -2- ashes. There was a total loss of vehicle and the empty gunny bags loaded on it. A report was lodged on 20.4.2013 by one local resident Mr Pritam Singh at local police station. The driver was charge sheeted by the Police. A report of the incidence was given to the opposite party insurance company whose surveyor Mr Neeraj Jain surveyed the spot and asked the complainant to file the claim with OPs company. The complainant filed the claim of the insured sum of Rs 22,00,000/- which was registered with the OPs insurer as claim No 33534433. The claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 11.4.2014. on the pretext that the wrong name of the driver as Taj Mohmmad, was written on the claim form. In fact Taj Mohammad is the correct name of the driver which was written on the claim form while his nick name is Nanhey and his father's name is Sohrab Khan. The claimant has submitted all relevant papers along with the claim to the OP insurance company. Since the opposite parties committed the deficiency in service hence this complaint has been filed claiming the insured amount of Rs 22,00,000/- along the monetary loss of Rs 50,000/- per month due to loss of the truck and claim of Rs 6,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs25,000/- for cost of litigation due to repudiation of the claim. Thus the total amount of Rs 28,75,000/- has been claimed through this complaint. All other relevant papers have also been filed with the complaint.
The complainant has filed the affidavit of the driver Nanhey to clarify the ambiguity in the name of the driver Taj Mohamad . The driver Taj Mohammad alias Nanhey S/o Sohrab Khan in his affidavit dated 9.9.2015 has said that his real Name is Taj Mohammad and the people of his village and the market call him by the nick name as Nanhey also . The FIR of the incident was was lodged by the transporter of Gnadhi Dham, Mr Pritam Singh who knew him by the nick name Nanhey.
-3-The Opposite Party No1 has filed the written statement supporting the reasons for repudiating the claim of the complainant . In the WS it has been alleged that in the FIR the driver's name has been written as Mr Nanhey Soyab Khan while in the claim it was written as Mr Taj Mohammad and in the survey report the driver's name is Mr Govind. It has also been alleged by the OP No 1 that the claimant has misrepresented the driver's name for getting wrongful gains from the insurance company. The claim is highly exaggerated and there was no deficiency in the service by the opposite parties. The OP No 1 has filed the copy the insurance policy wherein it is clearly mentioned that vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs 22,00,000/- from 12.10.2012 to the mid night of 11.10.2013. It was insured as new one. The other details of the vehicle like chasis No and Engine No etc. are also written on the policy cover as given by the claimant in the complaint and the vehicle was registered in the name of Misalyar Khan, the complainant with regional transport authority Gurgaon on 6.11.2012. The vehicle Registration No is HR-55R-2555. The vehicle has been registered after purchasing the insurance policy of the vehicle.
Both the parties have submitted their written arguments and their oral argument were also heard by us. The learned counsel of the complainant has repeated the pleas as mentioned in the complaint. He has said in his arguments the OPs have not furnished the name of the surveyor in the surveyor report and on the basis of the here-say story stated that at time of incidence the driver named Govind was on the spot and the company has concocted the story regarding the correctness of the drivers's name to repudiate the claim. The police in the FIR has written the name of driver as Taj Mohammad. In the driving License also the driver's name is written as Taj Moahmmad. There is no denial of the fact that Truck gutted in fire due to the touching of empty gunny bags laden on truck while it was passing under with the high voltage electricity line. The FIR was lodge by a -4- local person who knew him by his nick name Nanhey. Nanhey and Taj Mohammad are one and the same person and in support of his argument an affidavit of the driver Taj Mohmmad has been filed before this commission.The surveyor has also found the happening of the incident as correct.
The Learned counsel of the opposite parties in his argument have said that in the survey report the driver's name is written as Govind and the OPs have rightly repudiated the complainants claim. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy hence no claim can be awarded to the complainant.
After hearing the arguments of the both the parties and perusing the record available on the file, we have arrived at the conclusion that the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant. It was duly insured with Opposite Parties insurance company. The insurance was valid on the date of incident. The driver Taj Mohammad was driving the said vehicle and it got fire while passing through under the high voltage electricity line. The driver Taj Mohammad in his affidavit has stated that he is called by his nick name Nanhey also. At the time of incident he was driving the said vehicle. The contents of affidavit given by the driver has not been controverted by the opposite party No 1 or No 2 through any affidavit . In these circumstances the raising the controversy regarding the name of driver is a bogus story. At least the insured vehicle was burnt due to the said incident. The claimant is entitled for claim against the insured vehicle which got burnt in the incident. He is also entitled for the mental agony caused due repudiation of the genuine claim along with the litigation expenses. In view of the discussion mentioned above the complaint deserves to be allowed.
Order Complaint is allowed. Opposite PartyIFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.. through it branch manager at Bareilly, is directed to pay the sum of Insured -5- amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- and along the simple Interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment with in a period of one month. An amount of Rs 50,000/- on account of mental agonycaused due to repudiation of the claim by OPs and Rs 10000/- as litigation cost will also be paid by the OPs to the complainant with in a period of one month from the date of this order failing which interest @ 9% will be payable from the date of this order till the date of actual payment .
(C.B.Shrivastav) (Sanjay Kumar) (Mahesh Chand) Presiding Member Member Member S.k. st. c-1 [HON'BLE MR. Chandra Bhal Srivastava] PRESIDING MEMBER