Delhi

North East

CC/322/2017

Shri Gaurav Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 322/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Ram Prakash R/o H.No.121, Block-B-2, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Office at: 102, 1st Floor, DDA Market, J&K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

08.11.17 13.01.23 25.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

      Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

     Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as stated in the complaint is that the Complainant is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration no. DL-1SX-0641, Engine no. 07782 and Chassis no. 07634, Model- Splendor Pro, type motor cycle, colour Black. The Complainant submitted that he had given the said motorcycle to his friend namely Tinku for some time for his personal work. Later on, the said motorcycle was stolen on 05.05.17 and the friend of the Complainant lodged an FIR bearing no. 013566 dated 06.05.17 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. e-Police Station Mayur Vihar Phase-I, East District, Delhi.  Thereafter, the untraced report was filed by the police before the concerned court. The Complainant stated that his friend wrongly claimed for insurance amount in his name in respect of the aforesaid motorcycle without the permission and consent of the Complainant. It is further stated by the Complainant that he was the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and got the same insured in his name and as such, he was entitled for the insurance claim. The complainant further clarified that he had neither sold out the said motorcycle to anyone nor transferred the same. The complainant also enclosed all the photocopies of the relevant documents. It is further stated that on 04.09.17 the Complainant also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party through speed post whereby called upon the Opposite Party to release the insurance claim in favour of Complainant within a period of 15 days from the receipt of legal notice but despite due service, the Opposite Party did not comply with the requirements of the legal notice. It is submitted that the Opposite party has rendered grossly deficient services and harassed the Complainant. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint, praying to direct the Opposite Party to release the insurance claim amount i.e. 33,322/- of the vehicle in question with interest @ 18 % p.a. , Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 22,000/- for litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the actual owner/complainant has no cause of action as the opposite party was never intimated by the complainant regarding theft of the vehicle. The opposite party only came to know about the claim through present complaint; hence, there was huge delay in intimation as the Insurance claim was never lodged earlier with the opposite party. It is further alleged that the complainant had sold the insured vehicle to the new owner Tinku and concealed this fact and obtained the policy in his name. It is alleged that the complainant neither intimated the opposite party company about the change in ownership nor transferred the vehicle in question in the name of new owner which is a violation of section 157 of Motor vehicle Act. Therefore, the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the date of loss. It is also stated that the loss is not covered under the policy as there was wilful grave violation of terms and condition of the policy, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite party, however, admitted that the vehicle in question was insured by them.
3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party denying the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and reiterating the contents of the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. In support of his contentions, the complainant has filed the copies of Policy certificate, FIR, Copy of Court order accepting the untraced report, computer generated copy of vehicle particulars etc.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Vikas Goyal, Legal Manager for Opposite Party, Office at 4^th Floor, Red Fort Capital, Parasvnath Towers, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001, wherein the opposite party supported the averments made in their reply by relying on the Policy certificate alongwith the policy wordings.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. Both the parties also filed their written arguments.
7. Thereafter, the counsel for Opposite party filed an application for placing on record some additional documents which was allowed vide order dated 6.2.2020 subject to cost of Rs.2000/-.
8. By virtue of the said order, the additional documents were taken on record which were inter alia the copies of Claim intimation sheet, claim form, investigation Report and copy of repudiation letter etc.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
10. The case of the Complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the said vehicle was duly insured with the Opposite party. The said vehicle was given by him to his friend Tinku for personal use which was later on stolen. An FIR was lodged by the friend of the complainant immediately. Police has filed the untraced report which has also been accepted by the concerned court. The complainant also stated that his friend wrongly filed the insurance claim for the same without his permission and consent. The complainant has stated categorically that he had neither sold out the said motorcycle to anyone nor transferred the same and as such, he is entitled to the insurance claim.
11.  The case of the Opposite party is that though the vehicle in question was insured with them in the name of complainant, however, they are not liable to pay the same because as per their investigator report, the complainant had concealed the material fact that he had sold out the said vehicle to some Tinku. The vehicle was in his possession at the time of theft and the FIR has also been lodged by him. The complainant never lodged a claim with regards to the theft of said vehicle. The claim was lodged by the person named Tinku who was the actual owner of the said vehicle. The complainant has committed breach of terms of policy by not intimating the Opposite party about the change in ownership and not getting the same transferred. The opposite party contends that the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of loss, hence, not liable to pay the loss.
12. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party in the name of the complainant. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had sold the vehicle and did not intimate the opposite party about the change in ownership. However, there is no cogent evidence placed on record by the opposite party to substantiate the said contention. The opposite party has relied upon the findings of the Investigator Report, however, the investigator issuing the said report has neither been examined nor has his affidavit to that effect been filed by the opposite party. On the contrary, the Vehicle particulars in the report generated by the concerned transport authority and the Policy certificate very much prove that the complainant was the registered owner and the insured under the valid policy on the relevant date of incident. Therefore, in such case, the opposite party cannot be allowed to take the stand that the complainant had no insurable interest.
13. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that since the registration certificate and the insurance policy stood in the name of the complainant at the date of loss, insurance company had wrongly rejected the claim of the complainant on the premise that the complainant has no insurable interest. Therefore, the opposite party has been deficient in services while rejecting the valid claim of the complainant.
14. Thus, we allow the complaint and direct the Opposite party to pay the insurance claim amount i.e. Rs.33,322/- (Rs. Thirty three thousand, three hundred & twenty two only), along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
15. Order announced on 25.01.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Adarsh Nain)          Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President