Delhi

North East

CC/124/2021

Sh. Gaurav Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Acko General Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 124/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Gaurav Gupta S/o Sh. Vijay Gupta R/o H. No. D-6/67, Street No. 6, Gamri Extension, Gamri, North East, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	The Director Acko General Insurance Ltd. Unit No. 301,3rd Floor, E-Wing, Lotus Corporation Park, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063     ­	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:  DATE OF ORDER

15.09.21 15.12.22 17.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant is the owner of vehicle vide registration no. DL5S BS7882 chassis no. ME3U3S5C2JG230007 and engine no. U3S5C2JG195200 registers on 18.08.18. The Complainant stated that between 14.23 hours to 15.23 hours in night of 08.10.20 and 09.10.20 the said vehicle was stolen from outside of his house and the Complainant lodged an FIR bearing no. 025957 in e-Police Station Bhajanpura, North-East dated 09.10.20. The Complainant stated that he had comprehensive bike insurance of the said vehicle bearing policy no. DBCR0032378540/00 for the period 02.10.20 to 01.10.21 from Opposite Party. On 09.10.20 the Complainant gave intimation to Opposite Party about the theft of his vehicle and applied for claim vide claim no. MTDCBK26050 from Opposite Party and the Complainant has also submitted all the original papers for his claim. On 30.01.21 Complainant received an email from official of Opposite Party in which Opposite Party declined to consider the claim by stating the reason that “At the time of purchasing the policy from ACKO, the Opposite Party have declared that previous insurance policy which was with ICICI Lombard was not expired at the same is in continuation. However, the previous policy with ICICI Lombard is for the period of 01.10.19 to 30.09.20 and there is a gap of 2 days in the previous policy and the current policy with ACKO. It has stated that the Complainant has misrepresented actual facts at the time of policy purchase, hence the claim of the Complainant is declined”. The Complainant stated that it is the duty of Opposite Party company to analyse the details of the previous insurance policy, regarding the starting and expiry date of the previous policy and also to inspect the vehicle, if necessary as per rule of the company and after entire satisfaction Opposite Party had insured the said vehicle. The Complainant stated that he had also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party dated 01.07.21 and the Opposite Party replied the legal notice dated 14.07.21 declining the claim of the Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for claim amount of Rs. 1,54,508/- along with the interest of 18 % p.a.    
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice on 02.11.21. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 21.04.22.

Ex-Parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle no. DL5S BS7882 and the same vehicle was insured with Opposite Party vide policy no. DBCR0032378540/00 for a period of 02.10.20 to 01.10.21.The Complainant stated that the said vehicle was stolen between 14.23 hours to 15.23 hours in night of 08.10.20 and 09.10.20 and Complainant lodged an FIR bearing no. 025957 with the concerned Police Station on 09.10.20. Further, it was stated by the Complainant that he filed a claim with the Opposite Party along with all required document. Opposite Party repudiated his claim on the ground that  “At the time of purchasing the policy from ACKO, the Opposite Party have declared that previous insurance policy which was with ICICI Lombard was not expired at the same is in continuation. However, the previous policy with ICICI Lombard is for the period of 01.10.19 to 30.09.20 and there is a gap of 2 days in the previous policy and the current policy with ACKO. It has stated that the Complainant has misrepresented actual facts at the time of policy purchase, Hence the claim of the Complainant is declined”.
5. It is clear from the fact that Complainant’s vehicle was stolen during the validity period of the insurance policy which is not denied by the Opposite Party in their repudiation email to the Complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
6. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,54,508/-(IDV value of insured vehicle)  to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
7. Order announced on 17.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)            Member

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President