Penalising Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited for failing to settle insurance claim of a stolen vehicle and forcing its original owner to get the car released after recovery even when the ownership was transferred to its name, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed the firm to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to a Sector-45 resident.
Disposing of the complaint filed by Safri Lal, consumer forum also directed the firm to pay the car's claim amount of Rs 45,900, along with Rs 5,500 as cost of litigation.
The consumer forum, in its order on January 20, said, “The act of the insurance company in compelling the complainant to get the vehicle released in his favour, particularly when he is no more the registered owner of the said vehicle, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.”
In his complaint, Lal had claimed that his Maruti car insured with the insurance company was stolen on the intervening night of January 4 and January 5, 2012, adding that the police filed the case as untraced.
He said that in November 2012, the ownership of the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of the insurance company. However, the settled claim of the complainant was not paid to him.
Meanwhile, he was informed by the police that the vehicle was recovered and he could take its possession from the police station. However, later the police authorities refused to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on the grounds that the insurance company was the vehicle's owner. When he approached the insurance firm, instead of getting the vehicle released, they insisted that he get the same released, Lal alleged.
He claimed that he had been running from pillar to post, but his vehicle was neither delivered to him nor he was paid claim for it.
In its reply, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited denied any deficiency in services saying that Safri Lal was not interested in taking delivery of his stolen vehicle, and had built up a story that insurance company had not discharged its duty. The insurance company claimed that instead of getting the vehicle released he chose to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the insurance company with ulterior motive.