Delhi

East Delhi

CC/533/2014

MANOJ DUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI GEN. INS - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 533/14

 

Shri Manoj Dubey

S/o Shri Ram Avtar Dubey

R/o P-93, Lane P Shanker Nagar Ext.

Gali No. 6, Krishan Nagar, Delhi                                 ….Complainant

 

Vs.

             

1. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.

ICICI Tower, NBCC Place

Pragati Vihar, Bisham Pitamah Marg

New Delhi – 110 003

 

2. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.

Reg. Off.: ICICI Bank Towers

Bandra Kurla Complex

Mumbai – 400 051                                                           …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 12.06.2014

Judgement Reserved on : 02.04.2018

Judgement Passed on: 03.04.2018

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Manoj Dubey against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 7S BN 7435.  The vehicle was insured with OP-1 for a sum of Rs. 38,440/- for the period from 11.04.2013 (midnight) to 10.04.2014 midnight) and premium of Rs. 1,248/- was paid by the complainant.  OP issued a single page certificate of insurance vide policy no. 3005/18976421/10378/000. 

            It was stated that on 20.12.2013, the complainant parked the bike in front of the company around 2 p.m.  When he came back, he found that the bike was stolen.  He informed the police station vide FIR no. 1413/13 dated 23.12.2013.

            It was further stated that the claim form was submitted by the complainant with OP-1 alongwith the required documents.  Some documents were also submitted by the banker (OP-2) of the complainant.  The complainant visited at the office of OP-1 and made several phone calls, but all in vain.  He did not get his claim.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay the claim amount of Rs. 38,440/-;        Rs. 1,50,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

 3.        In the reply filed on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP), they have taken various pleas such the complainant had not stated about the lost of the original key of the said vehicle.

             It was stated that the vehicle was stolen on 20.12.2013 and the complainant lodged the FIR on 23.12.2013, after a delay of 3 days.  There was also delay of 4 days in intimating the insurance company.   

            It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.   Other facts have also been denied.

 

4.         Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the complaint.

            In defence, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) have examined   Shri Vikash Goyal, Legal Manager of OP, who have deposed on affidavit and reiterated the contents of the reply.  He has also got exhibited documents such as affidavit (Ex.RW1/A), copy of resolution passed/power of attorney (Ex.RW1/1), copy of insurance policy (Ex.RW1/2), certificate of policy (Ex.RW1/3) and letter dated 08.02.2014 by the investigator to the SHO, Kalyan Puri (Ex.RW1/4).

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there was delay in intimating the insurance company.  Further, the complainant did not provide the original key.

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have stated that there was no delay and the original key was not traceable.  From the evidence on record, it is noticed that there was a delay of only 4 days which does not affect the case of the complainant.  Not only that, the original key which was not available with the complainant cannot come in the way of disposal of the claim as the fact of theft remains. 

            When the vehicle has been stolen which was insured with the insurance company, these two minor objections will not help the insurance company in escaping the liability.  Therefore, the liability of the insurance company remains.  When there has been liability of the insurance company and they have not given the compensation as claimed, certainly, there has been deficiency on their part.  When there has been deficiency on their part, the complainant was entitled for the claimed amount. 

            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) shall refund an amount of Rs. 40,000/- which includes compensation on account of harassment and litigation charges.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied within the stipulated time, the awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                           (SUKHDEV SINGH)

Member                                                                              President