State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish Kumar Chauhan vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance ... on 13 April, 2026
CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 28.10.2016
Date of reserving the order: 13.03.2026
Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 1332/2016
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SATISH KUMAR CHAUHAN
S/O MR. HOSHIYAR SINGH
R/O H. NO. 79B, E3,
SHATABDI VIHAR, SECTOR-52,
NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201301
...Complainant
(Through: Mr. Sharad Kr. Raghav,
Mr. Shivalok Yashovardhan,
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Chauhan, Advocates
Mob.9999788392, 9990549475)
VERSUS
1. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
REGD. OFFICE:
IFFCO SADAN, C1, DISTRICT CENTRE,
SAKET, NEW DELHI-110017
ALSO AT: UNIT NO. A-B4, 3rd FLOOR, TDI CENTRE,
JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110025
...Opposite Party No. 1
(Through: Mr. K.V. Girsih Chowdary, Advocate)
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 19
CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
2. M/S CITI BANK
AT: JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, 3rd& 4th FLOOR,
CANNAUGHT CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110001
...Opposite Party No. 2
(deleted from the array of parties
vide order dated 08.03.2019)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Complainant in person.
None for opposite party No.1.
OP No.2 was already deleted from the array of
parties vide order dated 08.03.2019
PER : HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed against the M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the „Opposite Party No.1") and Citibank (hereinafter referred to as the „Opposite Party No. 2‟) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties as the Opposite Party No. 1 has repudiated the claim of the Complainant against the damage caused to the truck of the Complainant.
2. It is the case of complainant that he purchased a Tata Motors Truck (Model LPK2518) bearing no. HR 69 B 5953 by taking a loan of Rs.23,60,000/- from the Opposite Party No.2, which was to be paid in monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.72,000/-. The ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide policy bearing no. 94187393, which was valid from 23.09.2015 to 22.09.2016. The Complainant had paid an annual premium of Rs.59,268/- and the IDV value of the insured vehicle was Rs.23,60,000/-.
3. The complainant has further submitted that the said vehicle was mainly used for transporting construction materials between Delhi and Ghaziabad, which was the only source of livelihood for the Complainant. On 13.10.2015, at about 2:20 a.m., when the vehicle was returning from AIIMS Delhi, it was forcibly intercepted by four unidentified people having Bolero SUV, who had forcefully robbed the vehicle and also abducted the driver, Mr. Sekh Manjur. Later, the driver was thrown out of the vehicle near Sector 44, Noida. Subsequently, the Complainant lodged FIR bearing no. 1125 dated 14.10.2015 in Police Station K.M. Pur, South Delhi under Section 365, 392 & 34 of IPC.
4. The complainant has further submitted that due to this incident, he lost his only source of income. Complainant immediately filed an insurance claim with the Opposite Party No.1 vide claim bearing no. 36551453 and submitted all requisite documents, including the FIR, insurance policy, registration certificate, and the driver‟s driving license bearing no. 48373/TV/MON/09 issued ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. by RTO, Mon Nagaland & driving license bearing no. 15605/FR/NW/11 issued by Wokha, Nagaland. Complainant regularly followed up with the Opposite Party No.1 and provided all necessary information whenever required. Despite repeated assurances, the claim was not settled for more than six months. This caused him serious financial problems and mental stress as he had to continue paying heavy loan installments without any income from the vehicle, the only source of income.
5. The complainant further submitted that after a long delay of more than eight months, he received the repudiation letter dated 07.06.2016 from Opposite Party No.1. The claim was rejected on the basis of investigation report conducted by the investigator appointed by Opposite Party No.1, which stated that one of the licenses of the driver had expired and there was no record of the driver‟s other license with the issuing authority. On this basis, the insurance company concluded that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the incident and relied on a policy condition which says that no claim is payable if the vehicle is driven without a valid licence. Aggrieved with the repudiation letter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 again and submitted the original driving licence of the driver, requesting reconsideration of his claim. However, the company did not give ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. any relief and also did not provide the investigation report or any official confirmation from the RTO. This created serious doubt about the fairness of the investigation. In order to verify the fact, the complainant filed an RTI application with the District Transport Office, Wokha, Nagaland. In reply, the authority confirmed that the driver‟s licence (No. 15605/FR/NW/11) was valid up to 13.06.2017, which clearly contradicted the insurance company‟s claim that no such record existed.
6. It is the further case of Complainant that the conduct of Opposite Party No.1 clearly shows that the rejection of his claim was baseless and arbitrary nature of the repudiation and suggests possible mala fide intention and collusion between Oppoiste Party No.1 and its investigator. Opposite Party No.1 deliberately repudiated a genuine claim on frivolous and unjustified grounds, despite having collected a high premium.
7. Complainant suffered heavy financial loss, as he had to continue repaying the loan without having the benefit of the insured vehicle, alongiwth mental stress and hardship.
8. Having no other option, the Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following:
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
a) Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pass the Claim of the Complainant as per the Insured Declared Value under the Insurance policy, along with the interest; and
b) direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay damages of Rupees 5 Lacs (Rs.Five Lacs only) as exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity; and
c) direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay the complainant the cost of this complaint, and
d) direct the Opposite Party No.2 to stay the demand of monthly EMI of Rupees 72,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand only) which is in lieu of Loan advanced to the Complainant, till the pendency of the present complaint and/or
e) pass any other and/or further order which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and fair trial."
9. After receiving the complaint notice, both opposite parties submitted their written statements.
10. However, Opposite Party No. 2 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed by Mr. O.P. Gupta, the then learned Member (Judicial), since the matter was already settled between the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2.
11. In the written statement, the Opposite Party No. 1 raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present complaint. It was contended that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of „Consumer‟ defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant for commercial business of carrying ferrying construction material. As per the policy, the ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. vehicle is under hypothecation with the Opposite Party No. 2. The allegations of the Complainant need to put to strict proof. The Repudiation Letter was based on the facts and findings of the duly qualified investigator and assessment made by the Opposite Party No. 1. The Investigator verified the Driving License No. 48373/Tr/Mon/09 (15605/FR/NW/11) in the name of Mr. Sheik Manjur from the office of the District Transport Officer (D.T.O), Wokha, Nagaland. As per the verification report issued by the said D.T.O. the Driving License No. 48373/Tr/Mon/09 (15605/FR/NW/11) in the name of Sheik Manjur in the booklet format stands invalid as per the Transport Commissioner's Order No. TC No. 23/MV/2007 (PT-1) dated 01.08.2014 directing all license holders to convert to Smart Card Sarathi format. Therefore, the decision to repudiate the claim was based on the above said facts and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
12. The Complainant filed rejoinder rebutting the averments made in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant has also denied the allegations raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and recapitulated the facts stated by him in the complaint.
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
13. The Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove his averments on record.
14. The Opposite Party had also filed evidence by way of affidavit in order to prove its averments on record. Evidence by way of affidavit is duly supported by an affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Dhingra S/o Late Sh. Darshan Lal Dhingra, General Manager & Legal Head of the Opposite Party No. 1.
15. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1.
16. We have carefully perused the material available on record as well as written submissions filed by both the parties.
17. The first question for consideration before us is whether the Complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
18. The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the Complainant is not „Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the vehicle in question was used for commercial purposes. Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced as under:
2(1)(d) "consumer" means any person who,--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 8[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 2[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].
19. The objection raised by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a „consumer‟ is not tenable and deserves to be rejected. Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a person who purchases goods or avails services for a "commercial purpose" is generally excluded from the definition of a consumer. However, the law clearly provides an important exception--if such goods or services are used by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such a person continues to fall within the definition of a „consumer‟.
20. In the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that the vehicle in question was a single truck owned by the complainant and was being used for transporting construction materials to earn his daily livelihood. There is no material on record to show that the complainant was engaged in any large-scale commercial ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. activity, fleet operation, or profit-driven business enterprise. Rather, the facts clearly establish that the vehicle was his only source of income.
21. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court and various Consumer Fora have consistently held that a person using a vehicle for the purpose of self-employment to earn his livelihood would fall within the definition of „consumer‟ under the Consumer Protection Act.
22. We deem it appropriate to refer to Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court clearly held that the exclusion of "commercial purpose" does not apply where goods are used by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
23. Further, in Kavita Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates (2016) 1 CPJ 31 (NC), the Hon‟ble National Commission reiterated that the term "commercial purpose" must be interpreted in a pragmatic manner, and where the activity is carried out on a small scale for earning livelihood, the complainant would still qualify as a „consumer‟.
24. Similarly, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that in cases of theft of a vehicle, breach of policy conditions ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. like absence or invalidity of driving licence is not germane, as the cause of loss is theft and not the manner of driving.
25. Applying the above legal position to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the complainant was using the insured vehicle solely for earning his livelihood and not for any large commercial purpose. Hence, the objection raised by the Opposite Party No.1 is misconceived and without merit. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant squarely falls within the definition of „consumer‟ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the present complaint is maintainable.
26. The next question for consideration before us is whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by Opposite Party No.1 was justified?
27. The main ground taken by the insurance company for rejecting the claim is that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident. This finding is based solely on an investigator‟s report obtained by the insurer. However, it is a settled principle that such private investigation reports cannot override official records issued by a competent statutory authority.
28. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was duly insured with Opposite Party No. 1 for the relevant period and that the ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. incident of theft/robbery occurred during the subsistence of the policy. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR was promptly lodged and the claim was duly intimated to the insurance company along with all necessary documents.
29. However, it is a settled principle of law that findings of a private investigator, appointed by the insurer, do not have overriding evidentiary value over official records issued by a competent statutory authority.
30. To resolve this issue, we deem it to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru AIR 2003 SC 1292, wherein it was held that once the insured has taken reasonable care to verify that the driver possessed a driving licence, the insurer cannot avoid liability merely on technical grounds or on the basis of internal investigation.
31. Further, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court categorically held that the insurer must prove a willful and fundamental breach of policy conditions, and mere absence, fake nature, or irregularity of a driving licence is not sufficient to absolve the insurer of its liability unless it is shown that the insured was guilty of negligence.
ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
32. Similarly, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 100, decided on January 7, 2016, it was reiterated that the breach of policy condition must be so fundamental as to go to the root of the contract, and minor or technical breaches cannot be used as a ground to repudiate a valid claim.
33. Applying the above settled legal position to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the investigator‟s report relied upon by Opposite Party No.1 cannot override the official verification issued by the District Transport Authority, which confirms the validity of the driving licence. It is observed that the repudiation was based on an investigator‟s report alleging that one licence had expired and the other licence was not found in the records of the issuing authority.
34. The lodging of the FIR has no connection with the driving licence, as the claim arises out of robbery/abduction and not from any accident.
35. Copy of licence of MR. Sekh Raimullah and verification report dated 19.07.2016 (Page No.15 and 16 of the complaint) are reproduced as under :
ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
36. The said verification report, obtained from the District Transport Office, Wokha, Nagaland clearly confirms that the driving licence No. 15605/FR/NW/11 was valid up to 13.06.2017, whereas the incident occurred on 13.10.2015. This document carries evidentiary value and has not been effectively rebutted by the Opposite Party No.1.
37. The Opposite Party No.1 has failed to produce any authentic or conclusive material from the issuing authority to disprove the validity of the licence. Mere assertions in the investigator‟s report, without corroboration from official records, cannot be made the basis for denying a legitimate insurance claim.
38. Further, the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that the driving licence was not converted into a smart card format, and therefore invalid, is wholly misconceived. Such a requirement, even if administrative in nature, does not render a duly issued licence invalid for the purpose of driving, unless there is a clear statutory prohibition. At best, it is a procedural or technical irregularity, which cannot be equated with absence of a valid licence.
39. It is well settled through judicial pronouncements that for an insurer to repudiate a claim on the ground of breach of policy conditions, the breach must be fundamental in nature and must have a direct nexus with the cause of loss. In the present case, ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. even assuming there was any irregularity regarding the format of the licence, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to establish that such alleged breach was fundamental or that it contributed in any manner to the occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the repudiation on this ground is legally unsustainable.
40. It is also pertinent to note that the conduct of the Opposite Party No.1 reflects clear deficiency in service. The claim of the complainant was kept pending for more than six months without any reasonable justification and was ultimately repudiated after an inordinate delay of over eight months. Such delay defeats the very purpose of obtaining insurance, which is meant to provide timely financial protection in case of loss.
41. In view of the above, it is evident that the repudiation of the claim by Opposite Party No.1 is arbitrary, based on insufficient and unreliable material, and contrary to settled legal principles. We are of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the claim by Opposite Party No. 1 was arbitrary, unjustified and amounts to clear deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
42. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, the present complaint is allowed and we direct the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle i.e., ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026 SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR. Rs.23,60,000/- along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of filing of the claim till realization;
B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Party No.1 pays the entire amount on or before 12.06.2026;
C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Party No.1 fails to refund the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 12.06.2026, the entire amount is to be refunded along with an interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date of filing of the claim till the actual realization of the amount.
42. In addition to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of:
A. Rs.1,00,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the Complainant; and B. The litigation cost to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.
43. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
ALLOWED PAGE 18 OF 19 CC/1332/2016 DOD:13.04.2026
SATISH KUMAR VS. M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. & ANR.
44. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
45. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 13.04.2026 ALLOWED PAGE 19 OF 19