Himachal Pradesh State Commission Holds IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Based On Late Intimation And Unsubstantiated Blood Reports

Brief Facts:

The Complainant owned a scooter which was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company (“Insurance Company”). During the subsistence of the policy, the scooter was involved in an accident. The Complainant promptly informed the agent of the Insurance Company and gave the scooter for repairing at Barjeshwari Honda (“Dealer”). The repairing expenses totalled Rs. 15,721/-. Subsequently, a claim was submitted with the Insurance Company. However, it was repudiated, based on late intimation. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”).

The Insurance Company contended that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the scooter. Further, there was an inordinate delay in intimation of claim as the accident occurred on 31.08.2019 and the Insurance Company was informed on 24.11.2019. This marked a delay of 85 days. On the other hand, the Dealer submitted that its role was limited to repair work and there was no deficiency on its part.

The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied by the dismissal, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”).

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission observed that the Insurance Company failed to file the affidavit of the medical officer who medically examined the Complainant just after the accident. Therefore, it failed to prove that the Complainant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the scooter at the time of accident. Further, there were no urine or blood samples to indicate the presence of alcohol in the Complainant's bloodstream. With respect to the delay in intimation, the State Commission held that such a delay was insignificant as information concerning the accident was promptly given to the local police station on the same day of accident.

In light of these observations, the State Commission held that the repudiation was not justified. However, the Complainant was awarded only Rs. 11,846.33/- for the repair work as he failed to file affidavit of the Dealer who repaired the scooter. This aforementioned amount was based on the assessment made by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company.

The appeal was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to disburse Rs. 11,846.33/- for repair expenses and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

Case Title: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Case No.: First Appeal No. 162/2023

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Praveen Sharma, vice Mr Aditya Sood

Advocate for the Respondent 1: Ms Monika Singh, vice Mr Virender Sharma