Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/172/2016

M/S.CG.Swetha - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance co LTD rep Manager - Opp.Party(s)

N.P JAYA KUMAR

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on 14.10.2016

                                                                    Date of disposal          : 28.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.      : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.172/2016

 

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

                                

Miss.C.G.Swetha,

No.8/29, North Tank Square Street,

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.

 

                                                                                                   .. Complainant.                                                                   ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance,

Rep. by its Manager,

Chotta Bai Centre,

2^nd & 3^rd Floor,

Uthamar Gandhi Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

IRDA Reg.No.115,

404 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface-II,

New Linking Road, Malad (West),

Mumbai – 400 964.

 

3.  M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

CIN:U67200 MH2000 PLC 129408,

Registered Office,

ICICI Lombard House,

414, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayagar Temple,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai – 400 025.

                                                                                        ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                     : M/s.N.P.Jayakumar

Counsel for the  opposite parties             : Mr.S.S.Sajeev Kesan

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to  pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards negligence  and  to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant owned a two wheeler (Honda Dio) bearing registration number T.N. 06-K-2971 and the Vehicle’s Engine No. is J.F 39E70019256 and chasis No. ME4JF392 HD 7019240. This vehicle is covered by ICICI Lombard General Insurance vide Insurance Policy no. 3005/2010043767/BO/0000006568. On 23.10.2015 Friday at about 7.p.m she parked the vehicle in the street opposite to her house as usual duly locking the vehicle.  On 24.10.2015 Saturday afternoon at about 12.00 pm she found her vehicle missing from the parked site.  She immediately came to the office of ICICI Lombard General Insurance, and informed to the officials in-charge about the theft of the vehicle on 24.10.2015.  The official advised her to lodge a complaint at police station and get the FIR from police for the receipt of her complaint.  The complainant on 25.10.2015 went to the D3 Ice House police station at Natesan Salai, Triplicane, Chennai 600 005 and lodged her complaint about the theft of the vehicle.  Her complaint was received assuring necessary action, but she was clearly and categorically informed by the police officials that it was not their procedure to give acknowledgement for her given complaint.  So she could not remain persistent and persuasive to the  police officials for furnishing the acknowledgement.  This fact was informed to the officials of the first opposite party who asked her to furnish the FIR copy. The complainant was given motor theft claim form asked to fill it up and submit to the office.  She filled it up and submitted to the office.  The police officials finally gave the FIR copy on 16.12.2015 and in that FIR copy the date of complaint & time had been wrongly mentioned as 16.12.2015 at 21.30(i.e 9.30 p.m). The complainant submits that the police officials had refused to carry out necessary corrections about the date of complaint.  The complainant submits that she submitted the FIR copy to the First Opposite Party and came to the residence of her client to confirm the correctness of residential address, verified RC Book, Insurance policy. Took photograph of the place where the vehicle was parked at that time of theft.  The officials advised her to submit NOT FOUND CERTIFICATE for the stolen vehicle from police.  The complainant got the NOT FOUND CERTIFICATE on 05.05.1016 and submitted Xerox copy to them.  The complainant submits that she was shocked to notice from the letter of the opposite party dated 24.05.2016 that her claim has been rejected.  The act on the part of the opposite parties clearly shows their negligence, deficiency in service and they have caused mental agony to the complainant for no fault of her.  The complainant sent lawyers notice dated 14.06.2016 and subsequently. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties submit that the gross and negligent act of the complainant is clear from her act of leaving the vehicle. The complainant not gave a police complaint immediately. In any event the complainant ought to have intimated the police authorities and the opposite parties immediately on the occurrence of the incident. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.  In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject matter of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The due observance and fulfilment of the terms, conditions and endorsement of its policy in so far as they relate to  anything to be done and complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the company to make payment under this policy.  Hence it is clearly seen that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.  Hence no claim is payable. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same that she had lodged a complaint with the police authorities on 24.10.2015, which is only an afterthought, since even according to the FIR as date as 16.12.2015 there was a delay in reporting the police authorities and the same was only an afterthought and after an inordinate delay of more than 53 days. The opposite parties submit that the opposite parties had acted promptly and discharged their duties diligently.  The opposite parties by their letter dated 24.05.2016, diligently informed the complainant that his claim was repudiated owing to a breach of the policy conditions.  The opposite parties have clearly stated that according to the complainant the FIR was given after a delay of 61 days.  Both the contracting parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.  The opposite parties deny the allegation there was no disservice and deficiency in service. The opposite parties were informed after a delay of more than 61 days.  As per the policy conditions the complainant ought to have given notice in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the company shall require. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant may be dismissed .

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:    

1.Whether  there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony and cost?

4.To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled?

04. POINT NO. 1 to 3

          The complainant  is the owner of Two Wheeler (Honda Dio) bearing Registration No.TN-06K-2971. Ex.A2 is the copy of Registration Certificate in the name of complainant. The complainant vehicle was having valid insurance coverage for the period from 14.05.2015 to 13.05.2016. Ex.A3 is the copy insurance policy issued by the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party is the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Numgabakam Branch, 2^nd opposite party is the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai Office, and 3^rd opposite party is the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office, Mumbai.

           05. The case of the complainant is that the complainant parked her vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-06K-2971 in the street opposite to her house on 24.10.2015  Saturday afternoon at about 12.00 p.m and she found that her vehicle was missing from the parked site and immediately she informed the  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Numgabakam Branch, and officials  in charge of the insurance company advised the complainant to lodged a complaint at the  police station. The complainant on 25.10.2015 lodged her complaint about theft of vehicle at D3 Ice House Police Station, Natesan Salai, Triplicane, Chennai –5. The police received the complaint  and  did not furnished the acknowledgement and finally police registered FIR on 16.02.2015.  The complainant had submitted her insurance claim to the 1st opposite party and opposite parties had rejected the claim on 24.05.2016 stating   that there is delay in intimating the theft to the police. The complainant has informed theft of vehicle on 25.10.2015, immediately on the next day of the theft and there is no delay in intimating the theft to the police. 

          06. The opposite parties contended  there is gross negligence on the part of the complainant in leaving her vehicle on a public road and the complainant gave police complaint  shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate the company in securing the offender, but the complainant has not fullfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. There is delay of 53 days in reporting the theft to the police officials and the complainant informed the theft of vehicle to the opposite parties after a delay of 61 days and therefore, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant as per the policy conditions.

          07. The complainant  filed  the copy of complaint to the police dated 24.10.2015   and same has been marked as  Ex.A1 . The complainant in Ex.A1 written as follows.

   “Iah mth;fSf;F NkNy Fwpgplgl;Ls;s tpyhrj;jpy;  trpf;Fk; ehd; vdJ nrhe;j ,Urf;fu thfdj;ij 23.10.2015 nts;spf;fpoik) md;W ,uT vdJ tPl;by; vjpNu  cs;s Kl;L re;jpy; ,uT 7-kzpastpy; tz;bia tpl;L g+l;b tpl;L te;Njd;.

   kWehs; fhiy (24.10.2015)rdpf;fpoik ntspNa nry;y tz;bia ghh;j;j nghOJ vdJ ,U rf;fu thfdk; fhztpy;iy”.

The complainant has given police complaint to the inspector of police crime branch D3 Ice House Police Station,  Triplican, Chennai 5 on 25.10.2015. But the police registered the case only on 16.12.2015. According to the complainant the police have not given any receipt for the receipt of complaint on 25.10.2015, or registered the FIR on 25.10.2015. But registered the case only 16.12.2015. Ex.A5 is the copy of the FIR.

          08. One Saranya, Third Eye Consultancy & Service, Chennai issued a letter to the complainant as follows and same has been marked as Ex.A7 in the said letter it is written as follows.

       “We wish to inform you that  we have received the papers submitted by your claim, on the basis of scrutinizing the documents submitted & further surveying the facts of the claim, the following clarification and documents required to enable to process the claim.

      *The FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged 07 days after the theft of Insured Vehicle. The FIR should have been immediately lodged after the theft. If you have any proof or GD entry to substantiate the complaint given to police on same day of loss provide  a copy of the same.

       *There is delay for 10 days for intimating the claim to the company, please provide the reason for the delay in intimation in writing to us.

       We would like to inform you that in the absence of the above mentioned documents we would be unable to process your claim, which you would kindly appreciate. This is without prejudice.

       Accordingly we once again call upon you to kindly submit the above mentioned documents to enable to process  the claim”.

          09. On perusal of Ex.A7 it is stated FIR for the stolen vehicle was lodged 7 days after the theft of insured vehicle and there is delay of 10 days for intimating the claim to the company. But the opposite parties rejected the claim stating there is delay of 53 days in reporting the theft of vehicle to the police and there is delay of 61 days in intimating the claim to the insurance police. The complainant filed Ex.A8 rejection letter dated 24.05.2016.  The said letter also it is stated that the FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged after 53 days of the theft of vehicle and is further stated that the complainant intimated time to insurer after 61 days of date of loss and there were violation of policy condition and claim is rejected by stating no claim.  There is discrepancy regarding the date of reporting the  theft  of vehicle to the police and intimating the claim to the insurance company between Ex.A7 & Ex.A8. Therefore, this commission accepted allegation of the complainant that she informed the theft of vehicle to the police station on 25.10.2015  and intimated the theft of the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party on the date of theft itself. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the complainant  to  informed the police about the theft and informed 1^st opposite party about the loss. The complainant has not violated the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy.

          10. The learned counsel for the  opposite parties argued the complainant  has not reported the theft of vehicle immediately to the police and not intimated the claim to the insurance company in time and therefore, the complainant has not complied the condition mentioned in the policy and  the opposite parties rightly rejected the claim and relied the following decision of the nation consumer disputes Redressal commission

 (1)                                          “2013(2) CPR 844 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

VS

SH.HARPREET SINGH

 

(2)    NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.1362 OF 2011

RANG LAL (DECEASED)

THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

VS

THE MANAGER, U.T.I. BANK LIMITED

 

(3)   NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO.321 OF 2005

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

VS

TRILOCHAN JANE ”

 

The above decision are not applicable to the fact of the present complaint because there is no delay in reporting the theft of vehicle to the police and informed the loss of vehicle to the 1^st opposite party.

          11. The complainant is the owner of the  Two Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-06-K-2971 and said vehicle was having valid insurance coverage between 14.05.2015  to 13.05.2016  and said was stolen by somebody between 23.10.2015 to 24.10.2015. The complainant lodged a complaint to the police about the theft of vehicle on 24.10.2015 and informed the same to the 1^st opposite party on the date of theft. The complainant has not violated the terms and condition mentioned in the policy. The complainant also submitted the claim form along with relevant document to the insurance company. It is the duty of the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount to the complainant. But the opposite parties failed to pay the insurance amount and same amount to deficiency in service. The act opposite parties not paying the insurance amount would have caused mental agony to the opposite parties. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant  and the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-  towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

12. POINT NO:4

          In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 3  are jointly and severally ordered to pay the insurance amount for the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-06-K-2971 to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

          Further the opposite parties  1 to 3 are jointly and severally ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.    

          The above amount  of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) (10,000+ 5,000) shall be paid to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.10.2015                   Complaint to D-3 Police Station

Ex.A2 dated 02.09.2015                   R.C.Book of vehicle bearing TN 06 K 2971

Ex.A3 dated 13.05.2015                   ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Policy

Ex.A4 dated 02.01.2016                   Letter to RTO Chennai South East

Ex.A5 dated 16.12.2015                   FIR Copy

Ex.A6 dated 05.05.2016                   Not found certificate

Ex.A7 dated 10.02.2015                   Letter from Thirdeye  Consultance Service

Ex.A8 dated 24.05.2016                   Letter from ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Ex.A9 dated 14.06.2016                   Lawyers Notice

Ex.A10 dated 15.06.2016                 Postal Receipts(3)

Ex.A11 dated 16.06.2016                 Postal Acknowledgement Card of opposite parties

To 20.06.2016

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Policy of Insurance

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Terms and Conditions of the policy

 

Ex.B3 dated 24.05.2016          Letter sent by the opposite parties to the complainant

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT