Haryana

Karnal

CC/403/2023

Abhimanyu Lathar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Abhimanyu Lather

22 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.403 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.19.07.2023

                                                        Date of Decision:22.03.2024

 

Abhimanyu Lather son of Shri Daya Singh, resident of H.No.1069, First Floor, Sector-32, Karnal.

                                                                          …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.252, Second Floor, Sector-12, Opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

Head Office: ICICI Lombard House 414 Veet Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr. Suman Singh…………Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Ashok Kumar Vohra, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is owner of a car bearing registration No.HR51AT-3399 make BMW X1. On 09.03.2023, the said vehicle was parked in Sector-12, Court Parking and from there the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person and after that the complainant lodged a FIR. Thereafter, the intimation regarding the lost/theft of vehicle was given to OP. The surveyor of OP, visited the spot and on the instructions of surveyor, complainant completed all the formalities for getting the compensation of the stolen vehicle. After few days, OP demanded the certified copy of untraceable report and other documents through email and in this regard, reminders were also sent via E-mail. Meanwhile, the OP called the complainant and asked him to reply the E-mails as the OP needs some clarification of the key cloud report. OP asked the complainant about the key cloud report which shows some discrepancy and that discrepancy has been generated by the OP and does not match with the reported incident. To this the complainant replied that the stolen vehicle is a ten years old and it could be possible that the key starts malfunctioning because all these things are working on software and hardware and to support the claim, the complainant told that FIR is registered but the OP declined the genuine reply of the complainant and rejected the claim of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; and concealment of true and material facts, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that a claim No.MOT13357191 has been lodged by the complainant with the OP against four wheeler package policy. After scrutinizing the said documents, OP is unable to honor the claim and rejected vide letter dated 17.07.2023 and 02.08.2023. In the present case the keys supplied by the complainant differs in content and sequence which is contradictory in nature. The complainant furnished declaration as contained in the claim form signed by the complainant where it is declared that “If I have given/made any false or fraudulent statement/information, or suppressed or concealed or in any manner failed to disclose 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 all claims, past, present or future”. In this case, the policy has become void and complainant is not entitled to any claim. The complainant handed over both the keys of the stolen vehicle to the surveyor but it is necessary to mention here that the statements given by the complainant regarding the availability of keys differs in content and sequence which is contradictory in nature on perusal of the documents and facts. Thus, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of registration certificate Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C Ex.C4, copy of untraceable report Ex.C5, copy of complaint to police Ex.C6, copy of emails Ex.C7 to Ex.C11, copy of No Claim letter Ex.C12, and closed the evidence on 12.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sonu Rathi Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Ishant Kharbanda, Investigator Ex.OP2/A, copy of repudiation letters Ex.R1, Ex.R2, copy of policy Ex.R3, copy of general information Ex.R4, copy of Krishna Automobiles Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 04.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant insured his vehicle with the OP for the insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.8,57,246/-. On 09.03.2023, complainant parked his vehicle in the Court premises, Sector-12, Karnal, and after some time, when the complainant came back and found that his vehicle was not there and same had been stolen by unknown person. The matter was reported to the police station immediately and an FIR No.416 dated 09.03.2023, under section 379 IPC was registered by the police.  Intimation was also given to the OP regarding theft of the vehicle and requested the OP to settle the claim but OP has repudiated his claim on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the keys supplied by the complainant differs in content and sequence which is contradictory in nature. The complainant was furnished declaration contained in the claim form in which he has specifically declared that he has no right to raise any claim if there were any mis-representation but in the present case, there was mis-representation and due to that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant got insured his car make BMW X1 from the OP. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.8,57,246/-.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide repudiation letter Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 dated 17.07.2023 and 02.08.2023 on the ground, which is reproduced as under:-

“On perusal of the documents and facts, it is found that the statements given by you regarding the availability of your keys differs in content and sequence which is 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 and fraudulent statement/ information, or suppressed or concealed or in any manner failed to disclose 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 all claims, past, present or future”. Also it states “No material information, which is relevant to the processing of the claim, which in any matter 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 “Rejected”.

 

12.           The OP has alleged that the statements given by the complainant regarding the availability of car keys is contradictory in nature and also the complainant in his claim form has signed the declaration that in case of any false or fraudulent statement, he shall not be entitled to claim anything. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OP but OP failed to prove its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The OP has not placed on file alleged statement/document showing that the contradiction has been made by the complainant. Moreso, the OP has also not placed on file claim form wherein the alleged declaration has been signed by the complainant. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the complainant has signed the alleged declaration, in that case also, it is routine practice of the insurance company to get signed the blank papers and every person signs it while keeping faith on the representative of the company and same were used by them as per their suitability. The plea taken by the OP while repudiating the claim of the complainant is based on presumption and assumption, which is not admissible in the eyes of law. Thus, this plea taken by the OP is having no force.       

13.           The complainant has placed on file order Ex.C5 dated 03.07.2023, whereby untraced report has been accepted by learned JMIC, Karnal. Hence, it is well proved that the vehicle has not been recovered by the police.

14.           Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

15.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while repudiating the claim of the complainant which is otherwise genuine one.

16.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2, the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.8,57,246/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for IDV, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

17.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.8,57,246/- (Rs. Eight lacs fifty seven thousand two hundred and fourty six only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also bound to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.03.2024     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                       Member