Case Title: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
Summary
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Himachal Pradesh dismissed a complaint against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. for failing to acknowledge a valid incidental claim due to tardiness. The insurance company claimed the complainant was under the influence of alcohol and was notified of the accident on 31.08.2019, resulting in an 85-day delay in informing the claim. The District Commission dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission ruled that the delay in intimation was insignificant. The State Commission awarded the complainant Rs. 11,846.33/- for repair expenses, compensation, and litigation costs. The insurance company was directed to disburse the amount, along with compensation and litigation costs, after the appeal was granted.
About the case
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench, which is chaired by Inder Singh Mehta (President), found that the delay in informing the insurance company of the claim is insignificant if the police were informed of the incident within a reasonable period. As a result, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. was found to be negligent for failing to acknowledge a valid incidental claim due to tardiness.
The Complainant was the owner of a scooter that was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”). The scooter was involved in an accident during the policy’s duration. The Complainant promptly notified the Insurance Company’s agent and delivered the scooter to Barjeshwari Honda (“Dealer”) for repair. The total cost of repairs was Rs. 15,721/-. A claim was subsequently submitted to the insurance company. Nevertheless, it was rejected due to inadequate notification. The Complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”) when she felt aggrieved.
The Insurance Company maintained that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol while operating the scooter. Additionally, the Insurance Company was notified of the accident on 31.08.2019, resulting in an excessive delay in informing the claim. This resulted in an 85-day delay. Conversely, the Dealer maintained that its obligations were restricted to remedial work and that it had no deficiencies.
The complaint was dismissed by the District Commission. The Complainant lodged an appeal with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”) after being dissatisfied with the dismissal.
The State Commission noted that the Insurance Company neglected to submit the affidavit of the medical officer who conducted the Complainant’s medical examination immediately following the accident. Consequently, it was unable to establish that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol while operating the scooter at the time of the accident. Additionally, there were no urine or blood samples to suggest that alcohol was present in the Complainant’s circulation. The State Commission determined that the delay in intimation was insignificant, as the local police station was promptly informed of the accident on the same day.
The State Commission determined that the repudiation was unjustifiable in light of these observations. Nevertheless, the Complainant was only awarded Rs. 11,846.33/- for the repair work, as he neglected to submit an affidavit from the dealer who repaired the scooter. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company conducted the assessment that resulted in the aforementioned sum.
The Insurance Company was directed to disburse Rs. 11,846.33/- for repair expenses, as well as pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs, after the appeal was granted.
