Delhi

North East

CC/119/2021

Smt. Sudesh Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 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.119/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Smt. Sudesh Devi W/o Shri Anil Kumar R/o D-2/56, Amar Colony, East Gokal Pur, Near Ravi Das Mandir, Delhi-110094		Complainant
	Versus
	The General Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 1, Nailson Mandela Road, Basant Kunj, Delhi-110071	Opposite Party

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

10.09.21 21.11.22 07.02.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, 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 case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that she purchased a vehicle from Maruti Suzuki India which was duly registered as DL-9C-AQ-3290 with Transport Authority of Delhi and the same was insured on 04.07.19 w.e.f  04.07.19 to 05.07.20. The said policy is having no. 3001/MI-07699350/20/30. On 30.10.20 the said vehicle was stolen and complainant lodged an e-FIR having no. 028104 on the same date at Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, North-East District, Delhi. The complainant further stated that he does not renewed the insurance policy of his vehicle which was expired on 05.07.20 as it was lockdown all over the country and the complainant was out of work due to which he was not able to renew the insurance policy of his vehicle. The complainant submitted that govt. of India has announced the moratorium period i.e. the relief not to pay instalment from March 2020 to December 2020 for persons which has home loan, auto loan are pending. The complainant submitted that the Opposite Party insurance company did not consider the case of complainant within the ambit of moratorium period awarded by central govt. The vehicle of the complainant was not traced out so far. The complainant stated that Opposite Party company did not consider moratorium period announced by the govt. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.21.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file.  The case of the complainant is that she had purchased a vehicle and same was insured on 04.07.19  w.e.f  06.07.19 to 05.07.20. The said vehicle was stolen on 30.10.20 and complainant lodged an e-FIR on the same date. Since at the time of loss of vehicle insurance policy was not in force. So she was not consumer of the Opposite Party as per Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, the contention of the complainant that Government of India announce the moratorium period that relief not to pay instalment from March 2020 to December 2020 for the person which has home loan, auto loan are pending is not applicable in her case since the circular is about EMI moratorium and not for the insurance policy expired during the said period.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. 
6. Order announced on 07.02.23

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President