CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.85/2020

MOHD SHAFIQ QURESHI

S/o. SH. SHAIKH BALLU KHAN

R/o. 37/1230, DDA FLATS MADANGIR

DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110062…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

401 & 402, 4^Th FLOOR,

INTER PHASE-II,

NEW LINKING ROAD MALAD (WEST),

2. REGIONAL OFFICE

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

SHOP NO. 13, 1^st & 2^nd FLOOR,

UPHAR CINEMA COMPLEX GREEN PARK,

NEW DELHI-110016.

3. REGISTERED OFFICE

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414,

VIR SAVARKAR MARG,

NEAREST SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE,

MUMBAI- 400025…..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-30.07.2020

Date of Order-12.05.2023

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

The complainant pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP relating to insurance claim.

The brief facts are stated in complaint are that the complainant purchased a Creta Car bearing registration NO. DL8C2975 on 24.01.2018. He got the said car insured from OP.  After the expiry of the insurance period, he started receiving calls from different insurance company. He did not get his car insured immediately as he was trying to get the insurance with the lowest premium. Meanwhile, on 23.7.2019, his son-in-law, Sh. Hamza, had parked his car near Sanjivni Hospital, Daryaganj. He was unable to locate the said vehicle. He called the PCR and made a complaint. The complainant further submits that his son, Sh. Amzad, had taken the car, parked it at another place and forgotten to inform Sh. Hamza about the new location of the car. The complainant states that thereafter Sh. Hamza took back his police complaint. On the same day i.e. 23.7.2019, the complainant got his vehicle insured with OP that was valid from 28.7.2019 to 27.7.2020.

          The complainant states that he had taken his car to President’s House on 28.7.2019 and came back at 10 p.m. in the evening. He submits that he parked his car in front of his house. The said car was missing at 7:30 a.m. on 29.7.2019. He called PCR to make a complaint and FIR was registered. He also received an untraced Order from the Court. He gave both keys of the car and documents to the agent of OP, namely Shri Jagat Singh. The complainant states that he is paying the instalments of HDFC Bank for the said car. Complainant prays for settlement of his claim.  

          OP in its written statement has stated that the complainant’s car was insured from 24.1.2018 to 23.1.2019. The complainant did not get the insurance renewed after the expiry of the policy period.

OP submits that, on 23.7.2019, the complainant made a call to PCR about the theft of his car. On that day, the car was not having any insurance coverage. On the same day, the complainant renewed his policy with OP bearing policy No. 3001/176040993/00/0000 which was valid from 28.7.2019 to 27.7.2020. OP states that the new policy mentioned the previous policy period to be from 28.7.2018 to 27.7.2019 instead of 24.1.2018 to 23.1.2019.

After receiving intimation of the theft, OP appointed an investigator to investigate the incident. Since there was a gap in the two insurance policies and date of theft and date of renewal of insurance policy were in close proxmity, the investigator filed an RTI application with DCP South east. In the reply of the RTI, the investigator was informed that the complainant had made a call to PCR from his mobile No. 9899676676 on 23.7.2019. The OP submits that though call was made to PCR on 23.7.2019, there was no information that the car has been found. Consequently, the investigator prepared his investigation report mentioning the 2 PCR complaints. OP further alleges that the investigator was informed by Moharrir officer that the complainant was called by the police official to give his statement regarding the theft but the complainant did not come.

The investigator therefore opined that the theft took place on 23.7.2019 for which there is a proper GD entry. As the complainant did not have a valid insurance policy on that day, he obtained a fresh insurance policy and made a fresh complaint with the police regarding the theft of the car. The policy of the complainant is liable to be repudiated on this ground.

The complainant in his rejoinder has denied the averment made by the OP. He states that a complaint dated 12.3.2020 was made to OP and OP cannot escape from his liability.

The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-

1. Complainant’s evidence by way of affidavit which bears his signature at Point A & B is exhibited as Ex.CW1/1.
2. Copy of Purchase Bill of Car is exhibited as Ex.CW1/2.
3. Copy of ICICI Insurance Policy is exhibited as Ex. CW1/3.
4. Copy of PCR Call is exhibited as Ex.CW1/4.
5. Copy of Reply of the complaint is exhibited as Ex.CW1/5.
6. Copy of Insurance Renewal is exhibited as Ex.CW1/6.
7. Copy of Lease Deed is exhibited as Ex.CW1/7.
8. Copy of FIR is exhibited as Ex.CW1/8.
9. Copy of Untraced Report of Stolen vehicle and its RC is exhibited as Ex.CW1/9 (Colly).
10. Copy of photos of Key of the Stolen Car is exhibited as Ex.CW1/10.
11. Copy of Letter written to the ICICI Lombard is exhibited as Ex.CW1/11.

  OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of the General Diary entry is exhibited as Exhibit R1/1.
2. Copy of the investigator’s report is exhibited as Exhibit R1/2.

          The Commission has considered the pleadings by both the parties and material on record. It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant has purchased a Creta car that was insured from OP initially from 24.1.2018 to 23.1.2019. It is also admitted that a complaint was made to police station Daryaganj on 23.7.2019. Perusal of the Diary Entry dated 23.7.2019 shows the “Incident address: ANSARI ROAD HN 24/4 DARYA GANJ NR SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL. Incident description: GADI CHORI DL-8CAT-2975, Mobile No. 9899676676.”

          Complainant had stated that the car was taken by his son-in-law, Sh. Hamza. Thereafter, the car was taken by his son Sh. Amzad who had parked the said car in another place without informing Sh. Hamza. As a result, Sh. Hamza called the PCR and made a complaint. The general diary entry dated 26.7.2019 shows that a written application was received from Sh. Hamza stating that his brother has parked the car in another place which has been found later on. 

          Perusal of the letter dated 23.7.2019 by OP shows the policy No.3001176040993/00/000 is valid from 28.7.2019 to 27.7.2020. The letter also reveals that previous policy number is unavailable and previous policy date is from 28.7.2018 to 27.7.2019.

          Perusal of FIR dated 29.7.2019 shows that a complaint was made on 29.7.2019. The complaint was made by Sh. Mohd. Shafiq Quershi. The complainant submits that the car was stolen from RPS Colony between 7 and 9:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. on 27.9.2019.

          It is admitted by both the parties that the car was insured from 24.1.2018 to 23.1.2019 and was not insured on 23.7.2019. As per complainant’s own statement, the car was taken by his son-in-law Sh. Hamza and was found missing by him on 23.7.2019. A PCR complaint was made on the same day. It is also admitted by both the parties that the fresh insurance policy was taken on 23.7.2019 which was valid from 28.7.2019 to 27.7.2020.

          It is complainant’s own case that a complaint dated 23.7.2019 was withdrawn on 26.7.2019 as the car was taken elsewhere by his son Sh. Amzad. In violation of applicable motor vehicle laws, the car was plying on roads without valid insurance. The complainant also made a fresh complaint to police about the theft of the car on 28.7.2019 which was the first day of commencement of the fresh policy.  

          The complainant had registered the FIR on 29.07.2019. However, he has not placed any proof that the car was in his possession between 23.7.2019 to 28.7.2019. No affidavit of any neighbour or police personnel or any parking slip or fuel receipts showing effective possession by complainant during this period has been placed on record.

          The chronology of events shows that a police complaint about car theft was made on 23.7.2019, the car was supposedly found, a policy was taken on the same day and the car was stolen again on 28.7.2019 i.e. the first day of the insurance. These exceptional circumstances required the complainant to show proof that the car was in his possession in the period between 23.7.2019 to 28.7.2019. The complainant failed to provide any such evidence and OP was within its rights to repudiate the claim. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order to costs.