Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/438/2022

Sumita Setia - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Bobby Girdhar

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	438/2022
Date of Institution	:	18.05.2022
Date of Decision	:	15.01.2024

 

                     

            

 

Sumita Setia W/o Sh. Navneet Kakkar aged about 47 years R/o House no. 476, Sector 10, Panchkula. Mobile no. 9855018710. Adhaar No. 4875 7515 7451

….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd 4th floor, The Statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, 160002 through its authorized signatory.

 

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. ltd. Aggarwal city mall, Space no. 315, 3 ^ (rd) floor Aggarwal City Mall, Plot no. 04, Road no. 44 Pitampura, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory.

 

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor- Interface 11, Sixth Floor- Interface 16, Office no. 601 & 602, New Linking Road, Malad (West). Mumbai- 400064, through its authorized signatory.

 

4. ICICI Lombard House, 414, P. Balu Marg, Off Veer Sawarkar Marg, near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its authorized signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

 

BEFORE:
	AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Bobby Girdhar, Counsel for the complainant
	Sh.Kaveesh Kailey, Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that her Car bearing Regd.No.CH-01-AE-5617 insured with the OPs for the period from 15.02.2019 to 14.02.2020 for a sum insured of Rs.10 lacs (Ann.C-2) was stolen on 02.02.2020 while the same was parked in G3S Mall, Sector 11, Rohini Delhi by the driver of the complainant and he searched the vehicle but he could not traced out. FIR No.004175 dated 05.02.2020 was registered in the Police Station : e-Police Station (Shahabad Dairy, Outer North), Crime Branch, Delhi, in this regard (Ann.C-3) and the complainant also informed the OPs regarding the theft and the surveyor appointed by the OPs took the photographs at the site.  The police also submitted the challan/untraced report regarding the vehicle in question (Annexure C-5). The claim along with the relevant documents was filed with the OPs but the same was not released by the OPs and it was closed vide letter dated 22.07.2021 on account of non-submission of the documents.  It has been alleged that the complainant had submitted all the documents as desired by the OPs. Finally, the complainant served a legal notice dated 16.03.2022 requiring the OPs to release the claim but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to release the claim along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant does not qualify the ingredients of the valid complaint and that the complainant did not approach the Court with clean hands. The facts regarding the theft of the vehicle during the existence of the policy and registration of the FIR have not been denied. However, it has been stated that the OPs have acted strictly within the four corners of the terms and conditions of the policy. It has further been stated that the complainant did not intimate about the theft within the time period. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. and have gone through the documents on record.
4. The main question to be determined in the present complaint is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not releasing the theft claim of the complainant in respect of the insured car or not?
5. In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, it is necessary to discuss the following facts and circumstances of the case:-
6. From the record, it is observed that the insured car was stolen during the policy period on 02.02.2020 and an FIR No.004174, dated 5.2.2020 at P.S. E-Police Station, Shahbad Dairy Outer North, District Crime Branch, Delhi was registered (Ann.C-3) in this regard.  It is also observed that in the letter dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure C-4) sent by the OPs to the complainant in respect of his theft claim, the OP Company mentioned that the theft of car occurred on 02.02.2020 was reported to them on 03.02.2020 and they appointed Sh.Anurag Midha as Fact Finder, so it is proved that the OPs got the theft intimation on the very next day.  Further the Untraced Report (Ann.C-5) in respect of the theft case of the car in question, dated 16.3.2021 accepted by the Court has also been submitted to the OPs. Therefore, it is held that they have committed deficiency in service by not releasing the genuine claim of the complainant.
7. In an identical case of theft of the vehicle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Gurmel Singh Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., passed in Civil Appeal No.4071 of 2022,decided on 20.02.2022 directed the Insurance Company to pay insurance amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs along with interest from the date of submitting the claim.

         It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pastures to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sorts of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims.

        In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.  The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service by not releasing the genuine claim of the complainant. Consequently, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly Partly Allowed against the OPs. The OPs are directed as under:-

1.     To pay Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10.00 lacs (Ten Lacs Only) to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of theft/02.02.2020 till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.
2.     To pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental tension, harassment, agony as well as litigation expenses.

9. This order be complied with by the OP within ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10. The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open commission 15.01.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER