BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 Ram Kumar son of Sada Ram, aged about 48 years, resident of village Khuda      Kalan, Tehsil Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office LIC Building, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Branch Manager.

….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Raj Kumar Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. 

                    Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

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 Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To settle the claim of the complainant regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. To pay litigation expenses.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration NO.HR-01-AM-2648, Make Hero Splendor of Black Colour, having chasis No.MBLHA10BWFH68898, Engine No.HA10EWFHC11172, Model 2015. Complainant got insured the vehicle in question with the OP and the complainant had paid the amount of premium amounting to the OP and it issued policy No.3005/206619176/00/B00 valid from 28.09.2020 to 27.09.2021. The insurance policy was a comprehensive policy covering all risks i.e theft, damage etc. On 14.06.2021, the complainant went to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-01-AM-2648. Since the main road was in damaged condition, therefore, the complainant parked his motorcycle near Old Subzi Mandi, near a tea shop and locked the motorcycle and the complainant went to Civil Hospital to meet his relative. At above 8.30 AM when the complainant came back, he saw that his motorcycle was not there and the same was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant searched his motorcycle here and there but the motorcycle was not recovered. Immediately thereafter, the complainant also made a call from his mobile No.9896922819 at No.100 and gave the information regarding the theft of the motorcycle. The complainant also reported the matter to the police of Police Station Ambala Cantt. and FIR No.311 dated 23.07.2021 under Section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Ambala Cantt regarding theft of the motorcycle of the complainant. Neither the motorcycle was recovered nor the thief was apprehended by the police and the police submitted untraced report in the Court and the same was duly accepted by the Court of Shri Ishwar Dutt, Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. Complainant also lodged a claim with the OP regarding the theft of the motorcycle and completed all the formalities and submitted all the requisite documents but the OP has illegally rejected the claim of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that maintainability, not come with clean hands and estoppal etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents inspite of repeated requests and without requisite documents, the OP is unable to process the case. The OP vide letter dated 27.07.2022 and email dated 28.11.2022, asked the complainant to furnish the requisite documents but he failed to submit the same. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Sonu Rathi, Authorized Officer/Manager Legal, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
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 the complainant, which fell due under the policy in question, as theft of the vehicle took place during subsistence of the said policy, the OP is deficient in providing service. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that since the complainant failed to provide necessary documents sought from the complainant qua the theft in question, as such, the claim could not be settled.    
8.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that perusal of contents of letters dated 30.06.2022, Annexure C-5 and 27.06.2022, Annexure C-7 reveals that following documents were asked from the complainant by the OP:-
   1.  GD Entry/100 No.Call Recording/PCR Copy.
   2. All Keys
   3. Court Certified Untraced Report
   4. Indemnity Bond
   5. RTO Intimation
9.           First coming to the documents like GD Entry/100 No.Call Recording/PCR Copy and RTO Intimation are concerned, it may be stated here   these documents could have easily sought for by the OP, being the insurance company, through their surveyor, directly from the police station concerned and also from the RTO concerned. Similarly, it is coming out from the record that the untraced report was provided to the complainant only on 02.08.2022, Annexure C-9 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. Even details of the GD Entry/100 No.Call Recording/PCR has also been given by the police station concerned, vide RTI Reply dated 04.11.2022, Annexure C-3 which shows that the theft of the vehicle was reported by the complainant on 14.06.2021 at 09.49 AM. As far as indemnity Bond is concerned, there is nothing on record that a draft of the said indemnity bond was ever sent by the OP to the complainant. 
10.           Be that what has been discussed above, all these documents like Entry/100 No.Call Recording/PCR Copy, untraced report and RTO Intimation, were not in possession of the complainant and were to be provided by the Police and RTO concerned, on which the complainant has no control and if there was any delay in the same, the complainant cannot be held responsible for the same, especially, when admittedly, theft of the vehicle in question was reported on the very same day i.e. 14.06.2021, as is evident from the FIR dated 23.07.2021, Annexure C-4. Now all these documents have been provided to the OP through this complaint. Furthermore, it is not the case of the OP that there was any delay in lodging FIR qua theft of the vehicle in question. 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. However, 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….”

11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to furnish the indemnity bond with the OP within 20 days, after the receipt of the certified copy of this order. At the same time, we also direct the OP to settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days, on receipt of the indemnity bond, from the complainant. However, the complainant is left with the liberty to file a fresh complaint, if any cause of action arose to him, qua the claim in question. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room. 

Announced:- 04.10.2024.