SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3260

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
RAJIV – Respondent
NC/RP/1171/2018



Petitioner Advocates:MR. K.V. GIRISH CHOWDARY ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 01.12.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 23.12.2025

REVISION PETITION NO.1171 OF 2018

(Against the order dated 09.10.2017 in Appeal No.1251/2016

Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Iffco Tower-II, Plot No.3,

Sector 29, Gurugram,

Haryana-122001. … Petitioner

VERSUS

Rajiv

S/o Gulshan Kumar

R/o 92, Vikas Nagar,

Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri,

District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. … Respondent

BEFORE:

HON’BLE AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd),

PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr.D. Satya Sai Sumanth, Advocate (VC)

For the Respondent : Nemo (Exparte vide order dt.01.12.2025)

JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd), MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b)

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Haryana

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula („the

State Commission‟) order dated 09.10.2017 in FA No.1251/2016

dismissing the Appeal filed by the OP/ Petitioner and affirmed the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar („the

District Forum‟) order dated 20.10.2016 in C.C. No.362/2013.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the

original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

RP No.1171 of 2018 Page 1 of 11

##PAGE2##

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the

complainant, Rajiv (respondent herein), is the registered owner of

tractor bearing registration No. HR-02Z-3842, which he had insured

with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd (“the Insurance

Company”/ “the Opposite Party - OP”) vide Policy No. 78669789 for

the period from 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2012, with the Insured Declared

Value (IDV) of Rs. 4,75,000. During the intervening night of

26/27.04.2012, the tractor was parked outside the house of the

complainant‟s driver, but in the morning of 27.04.2012 at about 7:00

A.M., it was found missing, having been stolen by unknown persons.

FIR No.168 dated 27.04.2012 was promptly lodged at Police Station

City Yamuna Nagar. The Insurance Company was also duly informed

and supplied with all requisite documents. However, vide letter dated

04.03.2013, the Insurer repudiated the claim. Consequently, the

complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section

12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the OP

to honour the insurance claim, along with compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-.

4. The OP Insurer, in written version, raised preliminary objections

regarding the complainant‟s locus standi, territorial jurisdiction of the

District Forum Yamuna Nagar, and maintainability of the complaint.

While admitting issuance of the policy for the relevant period with IDV

of Rs. 4,75,000, the OP contended that upon receipt of intimation of

theft, the claim was registered and Shri Sonu Bhola, Advocate, was

appointed as Investigator. The Investigator‟s report revealed violation

of policy conditions, specifically that the tractor was being used for

„hire and reward.‟ Relying on the said report, the OP repudiated the

claim, terming it a “no claim” case on the ground of breach of policy

terms. It was asserted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief,

and dismissal of the complaint with costs was prayed for.

RP No.1171 of 2018 Page 2 of 11

##PAGE3##

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 20.10.2016 partly

allowed the complaint and relevant portion is as under:-

Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant

and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of

Rs.3,56,250/- i.e. 75% of the insured value of Rs.4,75,000/- on

non-standard basis within a period of 30 days after

preparation of copy of this order failing which the OP

Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till

its realization subject to submission of subro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top