View 5916 Cases Against Icici Lombard General Insurance
View 13510 Cases Against Icici Lombard
View 46316 Cases Against General Insurance
View 29123 Cases Against Icici
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. filed a consumer case on 04 Jun 2015 against A.Sasikala in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is FA/583/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Jun 2015.
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
F.A.NO. 583/2012
[Against the Order in C.C No.46/2010 dated 21.11.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) ]
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE 2015
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd
Represented by its Manager,
Chottabhai Centre, II Floor
140, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034 ..Appellant/opp.party
Vs
A.Sasikala
W/o Murali
4/1054, 4th Block
Mugappair west
Chennai 600 037 ..Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party : M/s Elveera Ravindran
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : M/s R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
The opposite party is the appellant. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite party filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(North) in CC.No. 46/2010 dated 21.11.2011.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.5.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North) this commission made the following order.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant insured her tipper lorry with the opposite party for the period from 18.4.2008 to 17.4.2009 having value for Rs. 9,26,317/- and the vehicle was missing from the mechanic shed at Vanagaram which was left for repair on 22.11.2008 and on 23.11.2008, police complaint was registered and when the claim was made against the insurance company on 28.5.2009, the opposite party repudiated the claim advising to approach insurance ombudsmen and the insurance ombudsmen also refused to entertain the claim stating the reason that the vehicle is a commercial one. Hence she had sent a legal notice on 5.6.2009 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not respond, hence the consumer complaint came to be filed seeking the relief for refund of Rs.9,26,317/- with interest and Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and for cost.
2. The opposite party denied the allegation before the District Forum admitting the policy details contended that the complainant is not a consumer having purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and also there was delay in filing the police complaint after 10 days and there was breach up condition of the policy and thereby the claim was repudiated.
3. On the basis of both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.6,94,737/- with 9% p.a interest from the date of complaint and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the contention of the appellant and the complainant is not a consumer having purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and there was violation of terms and condition of the policy in giving police complaint belatedly.
5. We have heard both side contentions and arguments and perused the materials carefully in this regard. The District Forum relying upon the ruling reported in 2008 (5) CTC 184, even if the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, the insurance company is liable to entertain the claim on non-standard basis and held that the complainant is a consumer even in the vehicle is purchased for commercial purpose, though it is not proved and thereby we are in agreement with the same and as for as the claim of insurance is concerned, the only contention that there was delay in giving report to the police about the theft for occurrence on 23.11.2008, the complaint was given on 2.12.2008 which is not disputed. But the complainant argued both the complaint was given immediately on 23.11.2008 for register, but the police registered a case only on 2.12.2008 in the regular manner after having preliminary enquiries but the records would come to show as soon as soon as the vehicle was missing, the complainant has given intimation to the opposite party and the claim was made on 23.11.2008 as per the letter of the opposite party under Ex.A.5, in the letter addressed to the complainant and acknowledgment documents letter dated 24.3.2009 and also reminder, letters 1 and 3 mentioned as “your motor theft, FIR vide crime No. 773/2008 lodged on 23.11.2008 under policy No. 3003/51625933/01/000. Hence it is clear that the complainant had informed the insurance company as soon as the vehicle was missing on 23.11.2008 itself to the opposite party and the police complaint as per Ex.A.3, though the date of Registration mentioned as 3.12.2008, the date of occurrence mentioned as between 2.11.2008 to 23.11.2008 (4 to 9 hours). Hence there cannot be any false claim by the complainant in this regard. As for as the repudiation is concerned, the opposite party repudiated the claim under Ex.A.6 in para 2 are as follows:-
“ On perusal of the documents it is revealed that the insured vehicle was parked in the mechanic shop premises. It was found missing from mechanic’s shop premises. The FIR registered under section 406 of IPC against the mechanic. The claim is not tenable as the insured vehicle has been missing from mechanic premises”
On perusal of the same document advised to approach the ombudsmen in this regard stated that the ombudsmen also repudiated the claim. As per Ex.A.6, the repudiation was made on the ground, since the vehicle was found missing from the mechanical shop and the FIR was registered u/s 406 IPC, claim was not tenable. But the complainant produced the copy of the final report of the police and alteration of charge u/s 379 IPC, 406 & 379 IPC as per the document under Ex.A.4, and also the certificate was given that the vehicle was not traceable and thereby the complainant is entitled for the claim of insurance amount for the theft of vehicle under the policy. The District Forum having considered all the relevant material in this regard, allowed the claim on the non-standard basis, by computing the vehicle at the rate of 75% of the loss sustained and directed for the payment of Rs. 6,94,737/- even though the complainant claimed for Rs. 9,26,317/- and in those circumstances, we find there is no error or infirmity in the order of the District Forum in settling the claim and in view of the same, we are of the view that there is no merits in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed, by sustaining the order of the District Forum, accordingly,
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No. 46/2010 dated 21.11.2011.
The directions of the District Forum, Chennai(North) shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.
No order as to costs in this appeal.
P.BAKIYAVATHI A.K.ANNAMALAI
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.