BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Amrit Pal son of Sh.Baldev Parkash, R/o H.No.3358/1, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at Quite Office 10, First Floor, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh,

2^nd Address:-

          ICICI Tower, Banda Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 51

                                                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                  MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Digvijay Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh. Maninder Arora, for                      complainant.

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                   Briefly stated the complainant availed Car Loan of Rs.4,04,480/-  from ICICI Bank and got it insured through OP Insurance Company vide Ann. C-1 on payment of Rs.4,480/- as premium.  It is averred that the said policy was valid for five years and whole principal as well as interest amount of loan was insured in case of Major Medical Illness & Procedure and Personal Accident whereas in case of loss of job, three EMI`s  were to be paid by OP Insurance Company.  It is asserted that due to the recession in Global Market, the complainant, working as Team Leader  with Tech Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., Noida had to resign from said job under the pressure of the Management of the Company, otherwise he would have been terminated, which would have resulted in loss of his experience and other service benefits.  Thereafter, the complainant visited OP Insurance Company and requested to pay/adjust three EMI`s  as per their policy Ann.C-1 but he was shocked when they told that they did not issue any such policy in the name of complainant and the agent who issued the cover note had already been black listed, whereas the car loan processed through the same agent was approved by ICICI Bank.  The matter was taken up with OP Insurance Company a number of times but they did not conced his request of adjusting three EMI`s  as per policy Ann.C-1.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer mentally, physically and financially.

2.                      OP filed reply and took objection to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer qua OP since no policy was issued to him.  It is stated that no premium has been received by the OP Insurance Company and therefore, no policy was issued.  It is also stated that even otherwise, as per the policy only loss of job was covered whereas the complainant has not lost his job but has resigned from the job.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency on their part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.                      Annexure C-1 is the policy of insurance showing that the complainant was entitled to a benefit of 3 EMI`s in case of loss of job.  The contention of the complainant in para number 3 of the complaint is that he was working in Tech Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., Noida, as a team leader, operations but had resigned from the job under the pressure of the management of the company failing which he would have been terminated which would have resulted in the loss of all experience and other service benefits.  His contention is that since he lost the job, he is entitled to the benefit of the 3 EMI`s as promised under Annexure C-1.  We do not find any merit in this argument.  The complainant has not produced any document to suggest if he was at all in service or working in Tech. Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., Noida as a team leader.  He has not produced his resignation letter nor any such document has been produced to show if he was compelled by the management to resign.  Otherwise also the resignation of an employee from the job does not amount to the loss of job as provided under Annexure C-1.  The Learned Counsel for the OP argued that the loss of job under Annexure C-1 covers only those cases, where the services of the insured are terminated which definitely is not the case in hand and therefore the complainant was not entitled to any such compensation.  As regards the contention of the complainant that if his service had been terminated, it would have resulted in the loss of all experience and other service benefits, that is not legally correct. The service rendered by him would still have been there. We are of the opinion that a false ground has been made by the complainant in para number 3 of the complaint to get the benefit of 3 EMI`s.

6.                      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any such benefit and there is no merit in this complaint.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.