Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/561/2023

NITIN KHURANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

SATYENDRA KUMAR

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/561/2023
Date of Institution	:	1.12.2023
Date of Decision	:	02/07/2024

 

Nitin Khurana aged about 43 years son of O.P Khurana, resident of House No.2043, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 67, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 160062.

..Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Authorized Signatory having its Branch office at 4th Floor, The Statement Building, Phase 1, Plot no. 149, Industrial Area Phase I, Chandigarh -160002.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Ltd through its authorized signatory having its Registered and Corporate office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi Marg, Mumbai-400025.

3. Falck Global Assistance, Claim Department, C/O Falck India Pvt. Ltd through its authorized signatory, Upper Floor, the Peach Tree, Block C, Sushant Lok 1, Sector 43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015, (India).

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Satyendra Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate for OPs No.1&2 (through VC)
	:	OP No.3 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had planned to travel through some southeast Asian countries in 2023-2024  and had insured himself well before in time with OPs No.1&2 company by purchasing group insurance overseas  travel insurance vide policy certificate bearing No. SX100470059  on 24.4.2023 (hereinafter to be referred as subject policy). The complainant paid Rs.1450.40 towards covering risk benefit on behalf of complainant and an Assist Fees of Rs.6,937/- was paid by complainant for comprehensive Travel Protection. Copies of policy certificate and Travel Protection Card are annexed as Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2.  The subject policy was valid w.e.f. 28.4.2023 to 27.4.2024 covering the risk of delayed Checked in Baggage and sum insured against the same is USD150 in case the delay of more than 12 hours. On 7.6.2023,  the complainant travelled from Yangon to Jakarta and the layover was of 1 hour and 45 minutes at Kuala Lumpur Airport  (Malaysia )  for transfer of Checked-in-Baggage as there was no direct flight from Yangon to Jakarta.  Copies of Itinerary of the complainant are annexed as Annexure C-3. On 7.6.2023  the complainant had horrified  experience when he did not find his checked-in baggage on reaching Jakarata Airport at 15:05 hrs. Immediately he approached ground staff and got registered the report to this effect.  The said fact of delay in checked-in baggage was duly evident from the property irregularity report Annexure C-4 issued by Malaysia Airlines to the complainant on 7.6.2023.  Due to delay in receipt of checked-in baggage the complainant was burdened with sudden and unnecessary expenses including toiletries, essentials and clothing etc. Finally the said baggage was traced from Kuala Lumpur Airport and the same was received on 8.6.2023 at 16:55 hrs after a delay of more than 25 hours. The copy of acknowledgement dated 8.6.2023 is annexed as Annexure C-5.  After coming to India the complainant submitted duly filled in and signed claim form alongwith certificate of insurance and additional documents vide letter Annexure C-7 dated 20.7.2023. However, the OPs vide letter Annexure C-8 dated 28.9.2023 rejected the claim of the complainant.  In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs No.1&2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel. however, it is admitted that the complainant had obtained the subject policy from the answering OPs and he had lodged claim qua the delay of checked-in-baggage and the same was repudiated on the ground that the documents which were asked by the answering OPs to the complainant to submit the same were not submitted by the complainant. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.3  was properly served and when OP No.3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 6.2.2024.
4. In Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant had purchased the subject policy Annexure C-1 from the OPs No.1&2 which covered the delay of checked-in baggage for a sum of USD150 with 12 hours deductible and the same was valid w.e.f. 28.4.2023 to 27.4.2024 and on 7.6.2023  the complainant travelled from Yangon to Jakarta and the layover was of 1 hour and 45 minutes at Kuala Lumpur Airport  (Malaysia )  for transfer of Checked-in-Baggage as there was no direct flight from Yangon to Jakarta and the complainant started journey from Kuala Lumpur at 13:45 hrs and arrived at Jakarta  at 15:05 hrs on same day i.e. on 7.6.2023 as is evident from electronic ticket Annexure C-3 at page 20 of the paperbook of complaint whereas his checked-in  baggage was received after about 25 hours i.e. on 8.6.2023 at 4:55 pm. as is evident from Annexure C-4 Property Irregularity Report issued by the Malasia Airlines Berhad and acknowledgement Annexure C-5, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the OP insurance company  is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if  the OPs No.1&2 are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant could not submit the requisite documents as asked by the OP insurance company.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 clearly indicates that the subject policy covered delay Checked-in-Baggage for a sum of USD 150 with deductible of 12 hours, making it clear that in case there is delay of more than 12 hours in  receipt of Checked-in-Baggage the insured shall be entitled for the covered amount.   Annexure C-3 the electronic ticket receipt  at page 20 of the paper of the complaint further indicates that  the complainant started his journey from Kuala Lumpur at 13:45 hrs and arrived at Jakarta  at 15:05 hrs on same day whereas his checked-in  baggage was received, after about 25 hours i.e. on 8.6.2023 at 4:55 pm., which is apparent from Annexure C-4 Property Irregularity Report issued by the Malasia Airlines Berhad and acknowledgement Annexure C-5 further making clear that  the check-in-baggage was received by the complainant on 8.6.2023 at 4:55 P.M.  after a delay of more than 25 hours  and as such the case of the complainant is squarely covered  under the subject policy as the deductible period was upto 12 hours only.
   3. The OPs No.1&2 also resisted the complaint  for the simple reason that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents with the OP insurance company  and further when the complainant had placed on record the said documents with the complaint, the OPs No.1&2 even during the pendency of complaint did not care to settle the genuine claim of the complainant, knowing fully well that the same was covered under the subject policy Annexure C-1. In this manner the aforesaid act of OPs No.1&2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. So far as quantum of relief is concerned, the complainant claimed USD150 and on the date of  repudiation of claim by the OPs NO.1&2 i.e. on 28.9.2023 the tentative value of 1 USD in Indian rupees was Rs.83/-. Thus the complainant is entitled for claim amount of Rs.83x USD150=Rs.12,450/- alongwith compensation.
5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs  No.1&2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹12,450/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 28.9.2023 till onwards.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of amount of ₹15000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation;

 

6. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
7. Complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 02/07/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member