BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.
Complaint Case No. 124 of 2021
Date of Institution: 27.4.2021
Date of Decision: 24.8.2023
Mr. Karan Singh aged about 57 years son of Sh. Indraj Singh, resident of village Dhani Phogat, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Limited, having its office at: Tower D, Twelth Global, Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002 through its Manager/Dealer.
- ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, having its Office at: 401 & 402, 4th Floor, Interface 11, New Linking Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064.
COMPLAINT UNDER THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
Before: - Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President
Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.
Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.
Present: Sh. Manveer Mehla, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OPs.
ORDER:-
Karan Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averments that the vehicle of complainant bearing registration No. HR61C-3411 (truck) was insured with the OPs, theft of which took place on 24.8.2019 in the night. The complainant submitted the required documents to the OPs under claim No. MOT09110450 but the same was not passed. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to pay Rs. 16,20,001/-to the complainant along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the OPs admitted this fact of insurance of vehicle No. HR-61C-3411 of complainant for one year w.e.f. 4.9.2018 to 3.9.2019, IDV of Rs. 16,20,001/-for commercial purposes and further that the said vehicle (Truck) was stolen on 25.8.2019. It is averred that after receiving intimation from complainant, the OPs deputed Perfect Investigator & ICS Assure Pvt. Limited who submitted their report to the OPs. It is averred that the competent authority of answering OPs after going through the papers available on file and after due application of mind have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 12.2.2020. So, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs because the claim has been rightly rejected by the OPs and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OPs.
3. In the evidence, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1/1 to Ex. C-1/8 and closed the evidence on 7.9.2022.
On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 and closed the evidence on 5.7.2023.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.
5. We have observed that the OPs have clearly admitted in their written statement that the complainant had got insured his vehicle No. HR-61C-3411 for one year w.e.f. 4.9.2018 to 3.9.2019 against IDV of Rs. 16,20,001/-and the same was stolen on 25.8.2019 and intimation in this regard was received by them on 26.8.2019. The insurance policy is Ex. CW-1/2 on record whereby the said vehicle of complainant HF61C3411 (truck) of complainant has been found insured for total IDV of Rs. 16,20,001/-w.e.f. 4.9.2018 to 3.9.2019. From the perusal of case file, we have observed that the parties have placed on record sufficient documents to clear the position of the present case i.e. insurance policy documents, Dial 100 report, copy of FIR dated 25.8.2019 for occurrence of offence on 25.8.2019, untraced report from Judicial Magisrate, 1st Class, Rohtak, repudiation letter etc. etc. and observed that after the incident of theft, the complainant immediately informed to the police as well as to the insurance company and the investigation/survey was got conducted by the insurance company. Finally, the OPs issued repudiation letter Annexure R-4 to the complainant on 12.2.2020. On perusal of said document Annexure R-4, it stands clear that the OPs ICICI Lombard company rejected the claim of complainant only on the ground that “on perusal of documents and facts, it is found that statements given by you regarding the availability of your keys differs in content and sequence which is contradictory in nature”. No other ground of repudiation of claim is mentioned by the OPs in the repudiation letter Annexure R-4.
6. In the context of above referred repudiation letter Annexure R-4, the learned counsel for complainant submits that the OPs wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant on some false and flimsy grounds despite the fact that the complainant had completed all the formalities of the OPs on their demand. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the OPs after receipt of intimation of theft of vehicle, deputed Perfect Investigator who submitted his detailed report on 15.11.2019 (Annexure R-2). The OPs also deputed ICS Assure Pvt. Limited with regard to know the genuineness of two keys of vehicle submitted by the insured whose report is Annexure R-3 on record. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the two keys, which were submitted by the complainant, were original and genuine but while sending the said keys to the laboratory, the OPs never put any seal thereupon, also did not obtain any signature of complainant and also did not allow the complainant to join the investigation. Upon this, the learned counsel for OPs submits that Key-1 & Key-2 were not original manufacture made, both the keys were unused and showed manual fabrication marks and dimension of these keys were different. We have minutely perused the related Forensic Examination Report of Automobile Keys (Annexure R-3) and observed that there is no any documentary proof/evidence from the side of OPs that the complainant was ever asked to join the proceedings of Forensic Examination to know the genuineness of the keys handed over by the complainant to the OPs. Moreover, the OPs also failed to place on record the evidence regarding the said ICS Assure Lab whether the said agency/Lab issued any notice to the parties concerned to join the investigation. The said lab also seems to be a private lab, which has no authenticity in the eyes of law, when there are no proof on record to show that the parties was asked to join the proceedings by the said lab or that the investigation was done in the presence of both the parties by the said lab.
7. So, in our considered view, the repudiation made by the OPs through their letter Annexure R-4, is held to be illegal and unjustified.
8. We have again perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. As per the contents of FIR No. 0316 dated 25.8.2019 placed on record as Ex. CW-1/3 and as per admission of complainant in his complaint, it is clear that the theft of vehicle in question took place on 25.8.2019 and the FIR has been got lodged on the same day o n 25.8.2019 and as per admission of OPs, the complainant given the intimation of theft/incident on the next day on 26.8.2019. Sufficient documents are on record i.e. R.C. in the name of complainant, driving licence, insurance policy, untraced report by the court of learned JMIC, Rohtak dated 17.3.2021 etc. etc. and it has been observed that the documents go in favour of complainant proving that actually the theft of vehicle which was insured with the OPs took place and necessary timely action of lodging the FIR has been taken by the complainant and required documents were submitted with the OPs. Although the vehicle in question was insured but there are some highly questionable things about the actual claim, the complainant is entitled. We cannot bye-pass the documents Annexure R-2 & Annexure R-3 filed by the OPs. As per document Annexure R-2 INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE’s Remark on Key of the Vehicle, “Both keys provided by the insured in which both the keys were used however both the keys were rubbed by some external source and Insured clarified that some of his driver brother have scratched the key but as per our observation this aspect is not satisfactory and insured is trying to misrepresent the facts”, Our Observation about insured Feedback, “The IDV of Insured truck is found on higher side however as per local market, the value to truck is lying between Rs. 10,00,000/- -Rs. 13,00,000/-some screenshot also being attached with.” Moreover, As per document Annexure R-2, the vehicle had run about 2,50,000 Kms. The R.C. annexed with file is valid upto 28.8.2018 and hypothecated to ICICI Bank Limited. We have observed that the complainant deliberately not made a necessary party to the ICICI Bank Limited by whom the vehicle was financed.
9. Under these facts and circumstances of the present case in hand and aforesaid discussions, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to submission of NOC from financed bank i.e. ICICI Bank Limited and indemnity bond by the complainant with the OPs regarding ownership of vehicle in question of company mentioning therein that if the vehicle is found at any later stage, the company shall have all the rights of ownership.
10. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
11. The present complaint stands allowed in the manner as indicated above.
12. The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
13. Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
14. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dated: - 24.8.2023
(Dharam Pal Rauhilla) (Shashi Kiran Panwar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.
