Haryana

Ambala

CC/49/2022

Gulab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Inss CO - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	49 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	17.02.2022
Date of decision	:	18.03.2024

GULAB SINGH S/O DINA SINGH, Resident of House No-1675, MIG, Sector-10, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, Interface Building No-16. 601/602, 6th Floor New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai-400064. (Through its Manager).
2. Regd Office Address: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE-414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- PIN-400 025 (Through its M.D).                                                                                  

 

….…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Pardeep Batra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. 

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay to the claim amount of Rs.8,43,000/- being sum insured of the insured vehicle
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of the car SKODA SUPERB bearing Registration No- HR-26-BN-8181, which was insured with the OPs under (Private Car Package Policy) bearing Policy 3001/209133641/00/B00. On 20 Jun 2021 the above said car was stolen in the area of Dev Nagar, Near Mohini Palace Delhi and the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No.016301 dated 21 Jun 2021 with the police of Police Station Parshad Nagar, Central District Delhi. He immediately, after theft of the above said car informed to the office of the OPs and provided them all the necessary documents like Copy of R.C, Driving Licence, Insurance Policy, Pollution Certificate, copy of one year statement of Bank etc. After receiving the Reminder No-1 vide which the OPs asked to provide (a) GD Entry/100 No. Call Recording/PCR Copy; (b) Previous Year Policy certificate; (c) Court Certified Untraced Report;  (d) Indemnity Bond; (e) Purchase Invoice (In case of new vehicle & RTI cover) and (f) RTO intimation, the complainant furnished all the documents, but after the expiry of such a long time the OPs failed to pass the claim of the above stolen vehicle of the complainant. Legal notice dated 25 Jan 2022 was also served upon the OPs but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as has suppressed the material facts; the present complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit etc. On merits, it has been stated that the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim, as he did not provide the necessary documents and has also failed to give any clarification to the quarries raised to him about certain contradictions in his statements. The reported claim of the complainant on receipt of the intimation was duly entertained, in due course without going into the aspect of its maintainability and one approved investigator Mr. Ishant Kharbanda was deputed to investigate the matter and to give his fact finding report. Said investigator met the complainant and visited different places and after giving the due consideration to all the facts submitted his detailed report, event wise and brought certain contradictions and concealments to the notice of the OPs. The said claim of the complainant has not been denied as per the merits/facts of his claim but only due to non compliance which he did not prefer to get reopened by submitting documents and clarification but filed this present false and frivolous complaint. The complainant has tried to manipulate the facts for imposing this false and frivolous complaint. The complainant himself is liable for misrepresentation firstly for availing insurance by declaring higher value of his car as Rs.8,43,000/- instead of purchasing the same for Rs.6,30,000/- and secondly for parking his car in question at a far away isolated place without taking due care of its safety and thirdly for giving false statement of the facts in every statement given by him to the company and investigator on different occasions. After scrutinizing and elaborating the whole facts and documents attached with the investigation report, the OPs without going into the merits of this claim even for clarification, asked the complainant vide letter dated 28.07.2021 and letter dated 24.08.2021 to provide the requisite papers but to no avail. Due to the unprofessional and improper attitude of the complainant regarding non-compliance of requisite and mandatory formalities, the competent authority was compelled to held the said claim as no claim legally within the ambit and purview of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was thus finally informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 12.01.2022. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Divyam Suri, authorized signatory, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh and affidavit of Ishant Kharbanda, resident of House No.120-A, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not paying the claim amount to him, which fell due under the policy in question, as theft of the vehicle took place during subsistence of the said policy, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the complainant failed to provide necessary documents sought from him qua the theft in question, and also gave contrary statements before the Investigator, as such, the claim was not paid to him and his case was closed.    
8.           It may be stated here that from perusal of contents of claim closure letter dated 12.01.2022, Annexure OP-3 it is coming out that the claim of the complainant was closed for want of pending documents as under:-
   1.  Service history of stolen vehicle
   2. Transaction/Payment details made against purchase of the vehicle
   3. Sale/purchase agreement of the vehicle
   4. Details of seller and last owner of vehicle
   5. Clarification required for contradiction of statement
   6. Complete travel details before theft of vehicle
   7. Call recordings of communication made with police officials after theft of vehicle.
9.           First coming to the documents like Service history of stolen vehicle; transaction/Payment details made against purchase of the vehicle; Sale/purchase agreement of the vehicle and details of seller and last owner of vehicle, it may be stated here that no justifiable reason has been assigned by OPs as to why they need these documents at this stage, especially, when they had already insured the vehicle in question as far as back on 05.11.2020. In our considered opinion, these documents were not of such a nature that they could be said to be material for settling the case of the complainant, especially, in theft case.
10.           Similarly, it has also not been justified by the OPs as to how it is feasible for the complainant to give any evidence qua complete travel details before theft of the vehicle in question especially when it is their own case that due to Kisan Andolan, all the toll tax barriers were made free to cross.  In our considered opinion, the grounds taken by the OPs in their claim closure letter dated 12.01.2022, Annexure OP-3 are unwarranted and the claim was closed purely on technical grounds in a mechanical manner.  
11.           Under similar circumstances, in Gurmel Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 666 when a truck was stolen and the insurance company sought documents which could not be provided by the insured, it repudiated the claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. Relevant part of this order is copied below:-
    • “The insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control….”
12.           As far as plea taken by the OPs that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.630000/- yet, the insurance was got done for Rs.8,43,000/-. From the perusal of policy document Annexure OP-9, it is evident that the vehicle in question was insured for an IDV of Rs.8,43,000/-. It may be stated here that once the OPs have themselves issued the policy in question, for the insured declared value of Rs.8,43,000/- qua the vehicle in question and have obtained premium against the said amount of Rs.8,43,000/- now they cannot writhe out of the same. The OPs are therefore liable to make payment of Rs.8,43,000/- to the complainant against theft of his insured vehicle. 
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against OPs and direct them, in the following manner:-  -
    1. To pay the insured declared value of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.8,43,000/- alongwith interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 12.01.2022, i.e the date of closure of the claim, till its realization.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.  

                    The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

   Announced:- 18.03.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President