Haryana

Ambala

CC/326/2022

SATINDER YADAV. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

KIRAN PAL CHAUDHARY

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	326 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	09.08.2022
Date of decision	:	04.10.2024

                   Satender Yadav aged 33 years son of Shri Bhola Yadav, resident of Shivalik    Colony, Kala Amb, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.149, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Mukul Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1.           To pay the claim amount of Rs.52,440/-, in respect of the stolen motorcycle.  
2.           To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.30,000/-

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR-04-J-6389, Model 2019 bearing Chassis No.MBLHAW08XKH09659, Engine No.HA10AGKHG14444. Complainant also got the said Motor Cycle insured from the OP at the time of purchase of the same by paying an amount of Rs.8654/- for a period of five years and a policy bearing No.3005/45433549/40519/000 was issued to the complainant which was valid from 20.07.2019 to 19.07.2024. On 19.05.2020, at about 10.00PM, the complainant parked his above said motor cycle in the verandah of his house. But on the very next day in the morning i.e at about 5.00 AM on 20.05.2020, the complainant noticed that the said motor cycle was not in the verandah (where it was parked). Thereafter, the complainant searched the said motor cycle here and there. The said Motor cycle was stolen by some unknown person. Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned police station and the concerned police of P.S. Kala Amb registered an FIR No.0149 dated 31.05.2020, under Section 380, 457 IPC against the unknown person. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant visited the office of the OP and informed about the theft of the said Motorcycle and also submitted the copy of the FIR and the complainant further requested to make the compensation in respect of the stolen Motor Cycle and the OP had given the claim No.MOT09916069. The official of the OP informed the complainant that they will inform the complainant as and when the claim would be passed. The complainant many times visited the office of OP for the release of compensation amount in respect of stolen motor cycle but all in vain.  It is stated that the complainant had purchased the said motor cycle after taking loan and he has to pay the installments even without using the said motorcycle. As such, due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment for which the OP is liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated that as per the version and documents supplied by the complainant, the vehicle bearing No.HR04-J-6389 was stolen on 19.05.2020, but an FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged on 31.05.2022 i.e after 12 days of the theft of the vehicle, moreover the intimation to the OP was also made after 14 days of date of alleged loss i.e on 02.06.2020, which is clearly violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is pertinent to mention here that two wheeler package policy was issued vide policy No.3005/5433549/40519/000 for the vehicle No.HR04-J-6389 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the FIR has to be lodged  immediately after theft and information to the insurance company shall be given immediately. Since, there was delay in lodging the FIR and also delay in informing the insurance company, therefore, there is violation of the terms and condition of the policy.  Even the complainant had failed to produce the requisite documents i,e cancellation report etc. The OP is not liable to pay any amount and there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Sonu Rathi, Authorized Officer/Manager Legal, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the theft of the vehicle in question took place during the subsistence of the policy in question, as such, the OP was under legal obligation to pay the claim amount under the policy in question but his genuine claim was not considered by it on flimsy grounds, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that since there was a huge delay of 12 days, in giving intimation qua theft of the vehicle in question by complainant to the police concerned and 14 days to the insurance company, there was a fundamental breach of terms and conditions on the part of the complainant, which resulted into repudiation of his claim, strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy in question.   
8.           The moot question which arises in this case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that we have gone through the entire record of this case and are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission because it is the own case of the complainant that theft of the insured vehicle in question took place on 19.05.2020, from his house but he lodged FIR No.0149, Annexure C-3 for the first time on 31.05.2020 with the Police Station, Kala Amb., against some unknown persons.  The complainant has failed to explain as to why such a huge delay of more than 12 days took place in lodging of FIR qua theft of the vehicle in question and that too which took place from his house. On the other hand, he should have done so within a day or to, so that the police is able to located the same because one or two days are sufficient to find the vehicle in nearby locations or with friends etc.  This negligence on the part of the complainant had deprived of the Police machinery to set in motion, so that necessary immediate steps for tracing and recovering of the vehicle could be expedited. In Kanwarjit Singh Kang vs. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. SLP (C) No. 6518 of 2018, decided on 29.03.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company on account of unexplained delay in lodging FIR qua theft of the vehicle with the police, considering it as a fundamental breach. The principle of law down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwarjit Singh Kang’s case is squarely applicable to the present case.
9.           In addition to the aforementioned issues, it is important to note that there was an acknowledged delay of 14 days in reporting the theft of the vehicle in question to the insurance company-OPs. This delay is significant as it may have implications for the claims process and the insurer's ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding the theft. Prompt notification is typically a critical requirement in insurance policies, designed to facilitate timely assessments and mitigate potential losses. Therefore, the delay not only raises concerns about compliance with policy terms but also impacts the overall resolution of the claim. Thus, this conjoint delay of 12 days in lodging FIR with the police and also 14 days in intimating the insurance company qua the theft of the vehicle in question is a fundamental breach on the part of the complainant, which attracts no leniency towards him to allow this complaint.
10.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

         

Announced:- 04.10.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President