DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.149/30.08.2007 Decided on : 09.04.2008 Surinder Mohan S/o Sh.Madan Lal C/o Gurmukh Mal Shibha Mal, resident of Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.ICICI Lombard (General Insurance) Company Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 through its Managing Director. 2.ICICI Lombard (General Insurance) Company Ltd., Zenith House, Kehgsavrao Khade Marg, Mahaluxmi, Mumbai 400 034 through its competent authority. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sunil Bansal, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Satish Mehta, counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.S.M.S.Mahil, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. ORDER: Surinder Mohan (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the ICICI Lombard (General Insurance) Company Ltd., Mumbai through its Managing Director, as well as its competent authority (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay his claim amount to the tune of Rs.21,943/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- Contd........2 : 2 : with interest @ 18% per annum. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift VDI bearing engine No.01959, Chassis No.06551 Model 2007, which he got insured from the opposite parties vide certificate-cum-policy No.3001/51288354/00/000 against payment of Rs.15,458/- as premium. The policy was valid from 21.02.2007 to 20.02.2008. The vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident and the complainant had submitted his claim to the tune of Rs.21,934/- to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties repudiated the claim vide its letter No.BTI/Motor claims/5555134/07 dated 18.08.2007 on the pretext that the vehicle in question was not registered with the Transport Authority at the time of accident. The opposite parties were stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, the facts relating to the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant, as well as repudiation of the claim are not disputed. However, it was contended that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the vehicle was required to be registered within the stipulated period. The temporary registration number, according to the opposite parties, expires after the fixed period of one month from the date of issue and without having registration number, the car could not be plied on the road. So the car was not fit to be plied on the road and, as such, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was perfectly legal. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Contd........3 : 3 : counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. From the written version filed by the opposite parties, as well as the letter dated 18.08.2007, copy of which is Exhibit C-2 vide which the claim of the complainant had been repudiated, indicates that the only ground for repudiation of the claim was that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident. The perusal of the Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule, copy of which is Exhibit C-3, indicates that the same was issued with regard to the vehicle bearing its engine number and chassis number only. There was no mention of any temporary registration of the vehicle or that in the event of the vehicle not registered with the Motor Registration Authority under the Motor Vehicle Act, this insurance policy was not applicable. The only exclusion clause in this policy was that the insured was not indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with this Schedule. We fail to understand as to how the opposite parties had chosen to reject the claim of the complainant on the pretext that the vehicle was not registered with the Registration Authority. If any violation of the Motor Vehicle Act was done by the complainant by not getting the vehicle registered with the Vehicle Registration Authority in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act, it was for the Vehicle Registration Authority to see what action was to be taken against the complainant. Non-registration of the vehicle within the particular period, by no stretch of imagination, can lead to the conclusion that the vehicle was used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the Schedule of the policy. The opposite parties thus were definitely deficient in service by not sanctioning the claim of the complainant who has been subjected to mental, as well as physical harassment in seeking his redressal through this Contd........4 : 4 : Forum. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint with a direction to the opposite parties to sanction the claim of the complainant and also pay him interest @ 10% per annum from the date of submission of the claim till its payment. The opposite parties are also burdened with Rs.5,000/- as compensation/litigation costs. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 09.04.2008 Sarat Chander, S.M.S.Mahil, Member. President.
