STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 20.01.2025 Reserved on : 07.05.2025 Date of Decision : 21.05.2025 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Registered Office at “IFFCO Sadan”, C-1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi 110

019 through its M.D.

Now : IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Authorised Signatory, IFFCO Tower-II, Plot No. 3, Sector-29, Gurugram-122001 ….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Kulmeet Singh K-Malhi son of Kashmir Singh, resident of Vinayak City, Jamnagar, Gujarat through Special Power of Attorney Bakhtawar Singh son of Maninder Singh, resident of Village Panwar, District Tarn Taran .…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran in C.C. No. 72 of 2022.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : None VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party i.e. IFFCO Tokio Gen. Ins. Co.

Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Authorised Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tarn Taran (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Kulmeet Singh K-Malhi had been allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant’s Toyota Fortuner Car, bearing Registration No. GJ-10BR-0082, insured with the OP vide Policy No. P400/ME172421, w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 31.05.2021, was stolen from Tarn Taran on 09.05.2021. In this regard, Malkit Singh the son of Lakha Singh lodged a Complaint/Rapat No.35 dated 09.05.2021 with P.S. Sadar, Tarn Taran. Thereafter, FIR No. 59/2021 under Section 379 of IPC was registered with the same Police Station. Vehicle was not traced, so Untraced Report dated 18.10.2021 was filed.

4. The theft claim was lodged with the OP and all the relevant documents were also supplied. The OP had repudiated the claim of the Complainant by stating that the Complainant had supplied the forged and fabricated documents of GDR, which had not been registered with the Police. The OP vide letter dated 30.11.2021 informed the Complainant that his claim has been closed as ‘No Claim’.

5. Stating the act of the Opposite Party to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OP be directed to release the insurance claim of Rs.15,50,000/- and to pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation for causing mental tension & harassment and Rs.1 lakh as litigation expenses.

6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellant/ Opposite Party had filed its written statement stating therein that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant had concealed certain material facts. It was pleaded that on receiving intimation, they had deputed Investigator Jatinder Dhiman to investigate the matter, who opined in his report that GDR No.035 dated 09.05.2021, linked to FIR No. 59 dated 06.05.2021 was ‘forged’ one, which was proved from the information received under RTI to the extent that ‘in the Rapat No. 35 dated 09.05.2021 there is no information of theft of vehicle GJ-10-BR-0082 Fortuner’. It was also found that no report of theft has been added in FIR bearing No. 59 dated 06.05.2021. The information regarding lodging of GDR/DDR No. 035 on 09.05.2021 was found forged