Delhi

East Delhi

CC/283/2020

RAMBEER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2024

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. CC/283/2020
( Date of Filing : 08 Dec 2020 )
 
1. RAMBEER SINGH
R/O H. NO. 601, VILL. BHUWAPUR, EDM MALL, GHAZIABAD, U.P.-201010
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. & ORS.
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEER SAWERKAR TEMPLE, PRABHA DEVI, MUMBAI-400026
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA PRESIDENT
  RAVI KUMAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 07 May 2024
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.283/2020

 

 

RAM BEER SINGH

R/o H.No. 601, VILLAGE BHUWANPUR

EMD MALL, GHAZIABAD, U.P.201010.

 

 

     ….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.

Service to be effected through its authorized signatory

Registered Office at:

ICICI Lombard House,

414, Veer Savarkar Temple,

Prabha Devi,

Mumbai – 400026

 

M/s. Auto Needs Pvt. Ltd.

Service to be effected through its authorized signatory

Office at: E-1/4, Pandav Nagar,

Opposite Mother Diary, Delhi-110092

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OP1

 

 

 

 

 

OP2

Date of Institution: 08.12.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 07.03.2024

Judgment Passed on: 07.05.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Judgment by: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGMENT

The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not settling his insurance claim regarding the stolen vehicle despite of having valid Insurance Policy.

  1. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that he had a purchased vehicle “Splendor Plus” bearing No. DL 7S AL 9980 which was duly insured with the OP1 from their Agent’s office OP2. The policy was issued by OP1 (certificate No. 3005/37407314/10378) for the period from 21.07.2017 to 20.07.2019 having IDV value of Rs.39100/-.

On 10.06.2019 the Complainant had parked his vehicle in front of ARC Camp, Delhi but on return he could not find his vehicle and after making search he could not find it and he lodged FIR No. 300/2012 (correct No.300/2019) on 11.06.2019. The Complainant thereafter lodged claim with the OP1 on 10.10.2019 which was repudiated on the ground that “it is found that statement given by the opposite party regarding the availability of the keys are differ in content and sequences are different in nature”. The Complainant issued Legal Notice dated 16.01.2020 which was not replied by OP and Complainant has filed complaint case before this Commission seeking following reliefs:

  • To pay a sum of Rs.39100/- towards claim alongwith interest @18% per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for causing mental pain and agony;
  • Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses;

Any other relief/further cost as deemed fit by the Commission.

  1. Notice was issued and OPs were served on 30.03.2022. OP1 filed its reply on 17.06.2022 through its office situated at 4th Floor, Paras Nath Tower, Bhai Vir Singh Marg, Delhi – 110001 alongwith condonation of delay of application. This Commission vide order dated 05.01.2023 rejected the application for condonation of delay. The OP1 filed the review application which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2023. Hence reply of OP1 cannot be read in its defense being time barred.

No reply has been filed by OP2.

  1. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit in which he has exhibited the following documents:
  • Copy of Aadhar Card of the Complainant as exhibit CW1/1.
  • Copy of Legal Notice as exhibit CW1/2.
  • Copy of OP letter as exhibit CW1/3.
  • Copy of postal acknowledgement as exhibit CW1/4.
  • Copy of RC of vehicle No. DL 7S AL 9980 as exhibit CW1/5.
  • Copy of Insurance Certificate as exhibit CW1/6.
  • Copy of FIR as exhibit CW1/7.
  • Copy of un-traced report as exhibit CW1/8.
  1. This Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records.

It is not disputed that the Complainant had insurance policy (Certificate No. 3005/37407314/10378) with regard to the vehicle i.e. ‘Splendor Plus’ bearing registration No. DL 7S AL 9980 and the period of insurance was from 21.07.2017 to 20.07.2019.

  1. On 10.06.2019 the vehicle of the Complainant was stolen from ARC Camp, Delhi and he lodged FIR No.300/2019 on 11.06.2019 and he also informed and lodged claim before OP1 which was rejected vide letter dated 10.10.2019 by OP1. The repudiation of claim was made by OP1 vide letter dated 10.10.2019.

OP1 in its repudiation letter has stated as follows:

‘On perusal of the documents and facts, it is found that the statements given by you regarding availability of your keys differs in content and sequence and are contradictory in nature. Please refer to declaration as contained in the claim form signed by you wherein it is declared if I have given/made any false or fraudulent statement/information, or suppressed or concealed or in any manner failed to disclosed mal information, the policy shall be void and that I shall not be entitled to all/any rights to recover there under in respect of any or on claims, passed, present or future. Also it states No material information, which is relevant to the processing of the claim, which in any manner has a bearing on the claim, has been withheld or not disclosed.

In the circumstances, you are therefore, informed that the above captioned claim as made by you hereby stands as “No Claim”.

 

From the above it is not clear that how the keys differs in content and sequence and are contradictory in nature. The  ground taken by the OP1 in rejecting the claim of the Complainant is vague and without any  supporting document and hence is untenable.

 

Otherwise also the complaint made by the Complainant goes un-rebutted as the reply of OP1 was filed beyond limitation and its application for condonation of delay was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2023. Review Application of OP1 was also dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2023. No appeal was filed by OP1 against the order of dismissal of condonation of delay or against dismissal of its review application vide order dated 15.09.2023 hence these orders have attained finality and as such there is no defense available to OP1 and it (OP1) has lost its valuable right of defense only on account of filing reply beyond statutory period and as a result the complaint filed by the Complainant stand established.

  1. For the reason stated above, this Commission holds OP1 liable for deficiency in service. OP2 had no role in rejection of claim by OP1 hence no liability is fixed on OP2 and the Commission orders as follows:
  • OP1 shall pay Rs.39,100/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 10.10.2019 within the 30 days from the date of this order to the Complainant.
  • OP1 shall pay Rs.7,500/- towards compensation including ligation cost to the Complainant.

The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order failing which OP1 shall pay interest @12% p.a. on total amount of Rs.46,600/- from the date of order till the date of realization.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 07.05.2024.

 

 
 
[ SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ RAVI KUMAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.