IFFCO-TOKIO — Car Insurance Claim Denial

I wish to lodge a formal complaint against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the arbitrary repudiation of my Motor Insurance Claim No. 30AA50291 under Policy No. N4601227 relating to my Hyundai i20 (Registration No. HR22L6514).

On 25.05.2026, my vehicle met with an accident at Sector-56, Gurugram. The vehicle was repaired at Triumph Hyundai, Gurugram, and I paid ₹33, 501 from my own pocket, as evidenced by the enclosed invoice and payment receipt.

IFFCO Tokio has rejected my claim solely on the ground that my diesel vehicle had completed ten years and was allegedly not permitted to ply in Delhi-NCR. The repudiation is arbitrary and legally unsustainable for the following reasons:

IFFCO Tokio accepted the premium and issued the policy with full knowledge of my vehicle's registration number, registration date, fuel type, and all other particulars. If the vehicle was allegedly not eligible to operate in Delhi-NCR, the insurer should never have issued or renewed the policy.
The policy contains no exclusion whatsoever stating that my vehicle is insured throughout India except Delhi-NCR or that claims arising in Delhi-NCR would be denied because the vehicle has completed ten years. Such a material exclusion was never disclosed to me.
It is also pertinent to note that in the proceedings dated 17.12.2025 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 13029/1985), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that no coercive action should be taken against owners of BS-IV and later emission standard vehicles merely because they have completed 10 years (diesel) or 15 years (petrol). This clearly demonstrates that the issue is not an absolute prohibition based solely on the age of the vehicle and that the legal position has evolved. Therefore, the insurer cannot rely upon a blanket interpretation of earlier directions to deny its contractual obligations under a policy for which it willingly accepted the premium.
Despite repudiating Claim No. 30AA50291, IFFCO Tokio has neither reimbursed my repair expenses of ₹33, 501 nor refunded the premium collected under the policy. Having retained the premium, the insurer cannot refuse to honour the very risk for which insurance coverage was provided.

In view of the above, I respectfully request IRDAI to direct IFFCO Tokio to withdraw the repudiation of Claim No. 30AA50291, reopen and settle my claim, reimburse my repair expenses of ₹33, 501 along with applicable interest, and take appropriate regulatory action for adopting an unfair and arbitrary claim settlement process.