State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naveen Rana vs Iffco Tokio Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 25 November, 2022
C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 12.07.2017
Date of hearing: 02.08.2022
Date of Decision: 25.11.2022
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1162/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. NAVEEN RANA
S/o MR. RAJBEER RANA,
R/o H.NO.20, VILLAGE JINDPUR,
P.O. ALIPUR,
DELHI-110036
(Through: Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
UNIT NO. A & B, 3RD FLOOR,
TDI CENTRE, JASOLA,
NEW DELHI - 110025
2. PEERLESS FINANCIAL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION LTD,
B-2/4, ARADHANA BUILDING,
NANIWALA BAGH, AZADPUR,
DELHI-110033
(Through: GNR Law Associates for Opposite
Party No.1 and CGC Partners for Opposite
Party 2)
... Opposite Parties
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the parties.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Pay the balance claim amount as per New Vehicle Replacement Cover Rs.58,82,036/-
b) Pendente-lite Future Interest @12%p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realisation
c) Pay Damages for harassment & inconvenience caused to the Complainant Rs.10,00,000/-
d) Direct the Opposite Party to pay Litigation Cost of the present complaint. Rs.1,00,000/-
e) Pass any order which Hon'ble Forum deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Complainant in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant insured his Audi Q7 car, which is manufactured in 2011, bearing no. HR-26BL-5900, with the Opposite Party No.1 on the specific assurance of Opposite Party No.2 vide Insurance Policy No.95163330. The Insurance Policy had an added advantage of "New vehicle Replacement Cover"
which covers the car in case of total damage beyond repair and full cost of a brand new car is reimbursed. The said car was thoroughly DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7 C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
inspected by the Opposite Party No.1 on 23.11.2015 vide Inspection Reference No. 257641. The car in question accidently caught fire on 22.06.2016 and got completely damaged. The Complainant immediately informed the police and the Opposite Parties about the said accident. The Complainant was assured that he shall receive the full claim amount i.e. Rs.92,49,818/- that is the value of the said new car i.e. Audi Q7 as per the new vehicle replacement coverage. However, vide letter dated 21.11.2016 the Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the Insurance Company approved a claim for Rs.39,98,000/-. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Parties to get the balance payment of Rs.52,51,818/- to be released as per New vehicle replacement policy but was of no avail.
3. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.01.2017, the Opposite Party No.1 stated that the Performa invoice provided by the Complainant is of different model i.e. of Audi Q7 45 TDI instead of Audi Q7 4.2(which was the insured vehicle), hence the claim of new vehicle replacement cover has been declined by the Opposite Party No.1. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2017 to the Opposite Parties to clear the outstanding claim amount alongwith interest but no satisfactory reply has been provided by the Opposite Parties
4. The Opposite Parties have separately filed their written statements and contested the present case wherein the Opposite Party No.1 has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party No.1 has contended that the Complainant had already accepted the claim amount equivalent to the insured DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7 C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
declared value i.e. Rs.39,98,000/. He further submitted that the new replacement benefit was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and the claim settlement falls under clause 2 of the Value Auto Coverage Manual under New Vehicle Replacement. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 prayed that present complaint be dismissed.
5. The Opposite Party No.2 has also contested the present case and raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the Opposite Party No.2 is merely a corporate agent of Opposite Party No.1 or Insurance Policy Distributor Company. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.2 had no obligations to indemnify/reimburse the insurance amount claimed by the Insurance policy holders and there exists no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.
6. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, Complainant has filed Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove his averments on record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.
8. The only question for consideration before us is whether the Insurance Company was deficient in service by partially settling the claim as per conditions of New Vehicle Replacement of the Value Auto Coverage Manual of the said policy.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 7 C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
9. For proper appreciation of the matter, the New Vehicle Replacement i.e. Part 2 of the Value Auto Coverage Manual of the Insurance Policy, is reproduced below:
"If the Insured Vehicle is lost, damaged as per Section B "Scope of Coverage", then the benefit of New Vehicle Replacement will be given as per following conditions:-
1) If the Insured Vehicle becomes a Total Loss within the prescribed age of the vehicle, ITGI will pay for the actual amount difference between the IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the Insured Vehicle and the current Ex-Showroom price of New Vehicle of same make, model, features, specification.
2) The Insured Vehicle is available for sale as New Vehicle in India and is not out of production; otherwise for such vehicles which are out of production the claim will be settled as per Condition No.(3)(a) i.e. Total Loss claim settlement of Standard Motor Package Policy.
3) If the Insured Vehicle goes out of production after commencement of insurance; then the difference between last available Ex-Showroom price of the insured Vehicle and IDV (Insured Declared Value) will be paid.
4) The available Ex-Showroom price for the Replacement of the vehicle can not be for a date after the settlement of Total Loss Claim for the insured vehicle under Own Damage section of Motor Policy.
5) Insurance Cost:- ITGI will also pay for insurance cost of contracting a new Insurance Policy on the same terms of insurance for the same make, model as that of insurance of the Insured Vehicle which is subject to the Total Loss. This payment of Insurance Cost will be made after deducting the pro-rata premium of Insurance Policy of Insured Vehicle for the period of insurance from the inception till the date of accident on which the Insured Vehicle has become subject to the Total Loss.
6) Registration Cost:- ITGI will also pay for the On-Road cost i.e. including Registration and Road Tax cost for DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 7 C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
the New Replacement vehicle on the same terms including make, model as that of the Insured Vehicle after accounting for any refund obtained from Registration authority for the Insured Vehicle."
10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid condition shows that in cases where the Insured Vehicle goes out of production then, the Insurance Company shall settle the claim as per the Condition No.(3)(a) i.e. Total Loss claim settlement of Standard Motor Package Policy. The Condition No.(3)(a) of Standard Motor Package Policy is reproduced below:
"The Company may at its own option repair reinstate or replace the vehicle or part thereof and/or its accessories or may pay in cash the amount of the loss or damage and the liability of the Company shall not exceed:
a) For total loss/constructive total loss of the vehicle -
the insured's declared value (IDV) of the vehicle (including accessories thereon) as specified in the Schedule less the value of the wreck."
11. Perusal of the letter dated 11.01.2017 reflects that the claim was settled by the insurance company/Opposite Party No.1 on the basis of the observation that the car Audi Q7 4.2 has been out of production and the said variant have been upgraded to Audi Q7 45 TDI which is worth Rs.92,49,818/-.
12. It is apt to mention here that the car of the Complainant has been out of production and is not disputed by the parties. Moreover, the Complainant provided Performa Invoice for Audi Q7 45 TDI which has different specifications in terms of its length, width, seating capacity, engine, fuel tank capacity, mileage and many DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 7 C/1162/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. NAVEEN RANA VS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
more than the car of the Complainant i.e. Audi Q7 4.2 TDI variant. However, the claim that has been settled by the Opposite Party No.1 is as per the terms and conditions of the said policy.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is being devoid of any merit. Consequently, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
25.11.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 7