Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 309
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, CJ, PINKI, J
MR. RAJESH KUMAR KAUSHIK – Appellant
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO.282/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Sagar Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Ms. Simmi Singh
Insurance claims must adhere to policy terms; acceptance of settlement precludes further claims.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2 - Insurance claim - Delay and denial of payment for parking and towing charges following total loss declaration - Appellant claimed that respondent failed to compensate for incurred parking costs - Respondent established that terms of policy dictated limits of liability, including already paid towing charges. (Paras 11-16)
(B) Deficiency of service - Definition and application - Court ruled that appellant’s acceptance of the settlement precluded further claims, affirming that all contractual obligations were met by the insurance provider. (Paras 12-15)
(C) Final decision - Court upheld the District Commission's dismissal of the complaint, emphasizing contractual adherence between parties. (Para 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims for additional charges were made after accident (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. entitlement to charges established by insurance terms (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. finality of acceptance of claim limits further claims (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“1. Briefly put Complainant had an EON Hyundai Car which met with an accident on 29.09.2020. The said vehicle was insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP.. It is stated that the police complaint was lodged on the day of the accident and claim of the accidental vehicle was lodged with OP.
2. The accidental vehicle was towed to Deep Hyundai Mundka Workshop and it is alleged that OP was to pay all the expenses for towing the vehicle and parking charges and the Complainant was promised that the towing and parking charges of the vehicle would be paid to the Complainant at the time of final payment. It is stated that the very next day of the accident a surveyor was appointed by OP to provide the estimate of damaged vehicle. The surveyor declared the vehicle as total loss on
03.10.2020.”
3. It is next stated that on 20.11.2020, Complainant received a mail from the OP directing the Complainant to handover the vehicle lying at Deep Hyundai workshop to the person appointed by OP. The Complainant approached the workshop for release of the vehicle but Complainant after haggling with the workshop paid Rs.15,000/- and requested OP to make the payment and the processing charges. However, the same were not paid by OP. It is next stated that OP while making the final payment deducted Rs.4,200/- towards tow away charges and Rs.1,000/- towards excess payment.
4. It is thus stated that due to delay on part of OP, Complainant had to pay the parking charges of Rs.15,000/-. It is alleged that tow away and parking charges were to be paid by OP which were not paid by them.
5. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment and pecuniary loss of parking and tow away charges alongwith litigation cost.”
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated
31.05.2023, whereby it held as under:
“11. The only question to be decided by this Commission is whether the Complainant was entitled to the towing and parking charges of the accidental vehicle.
12. Admittedly, Complainant has already received Rs.1,71,725/- towards full and final payment which includes Rs.15,00/- towards the towing charges. It is seen that that the towing charges were paid as per Section 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. As parties under the insurance contract are bound by terms and conditions stipulated therein Complainant is not allowed to agitate the same.
13. As regard parking charges Complainant has not been able to establish that OP was liable to pay the said parking charges. Complainant’s averment that he had to pay excess parking charges the surveyor was immediately appointed by the OP company upon the claim it has been attributed to the Complainant, by the surveyor. In the surveyor report dated 14.12.2020 annexed as Annexure R-3, the surveyor has stated that as the‘insured submitted the consent letter and other paper through office on 12.12.2020 so submission of report is delayed.’
14. The same has not been controverted by the Complainant.
15. It is also noted that Complainant has filed an affidavit wherein the amount of Rs.1,71,725/- have been accepted by the Complainant as full and final claim of the damaged vehicle without any protest. This amounts to acquiescence therefore his right to agitate further is closed.
16. In light of the aforestated reasons, this commission is of the view that the claim of the Complainant has been rightly processed and any further claim is beyond the scope of the policy of terms and conditions.
17.
