DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 197 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 08.04.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 03.08.2011 |
Jaskaran Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh, R/o village Kamalu Swaitch, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab. …..Complainant V E R S U S 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Sharma Complex, 1st floor, Power House Road, Near Traffic Police Post, Bathinda, through its Manager. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Office at SCO No. 24-25, 1st floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager. ……Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.P.S.Bedi, Counsel for complainant OPs exparte. PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got his Toyota Innova Card insured from OP No.1 vide cover note No. PF5716159 valid from 20.12.2007 to 19.12.2008 for sum assured of Rs.7,04,000/-. The car in question was stolen from the parking place at Sector 42, Chandigarh on 18.12.2008. A DDR thereof was immediately lodged on 18.12.2008. The complainant stated that the FIR was lodged by the police on 02.04.2009. On intimation regarding the theft to OP, the surveyor was appointed for assessment of the loss. The complainant further averred that he has submitted claim form along with all the requisite documents with the OPs but despite his several requests and visits, the OPs did not settle the claim, rather repudiated the same letter dated 1.7.2010 which amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complainant. 2. OP did not turn up despite service and suffered ex parte. 3. The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 5. The case of the complainant is that he was owner of Toyota Innova Card which was insured with OP No.1 vide cover note No. PF5716159 (Annexure-B) valid from 20.12.2007 to 19.12.2008 for sum assured of Rs.7,04,000/-. The said car was stolen from the parking place at Sector 42, Chandigarh on 18.12.2008. A DDR (Annexure C) thereof was immediately lodged on 18.12.2008. The copy of the FIR lodged with the police on 02.04.2009 is Annexure D. The OP was informed about the theft of the vehicle who in turn appointed the surveyor for assessment of the loss. 6. The complainant lodged the FIR with regard to the vehicle in question on 02.12.2012 qua Annexure D. The OP wrote letter dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure-E ) to the complainant stating therein that the date of loss of the vehicle is 18.12.2008 and the intimation to the police is dated 04.02.2009. So there is a delay of 4 months in providing the information to the police whereas as per condition No.1 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the immediate information is required to be given to the OP. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant has violated the condition No.1 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as claimed in letter dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure-E ). The answer to this is in negative. 8. The complainant has got lodged the DDR with the Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh on 18.12.2008 vide Annexure C. As per the averments contained in the complaint, the theft of the vehicle also took place on 18.12.2008. Therefore, it can be concluded without hesitation that the complainant has not infringed or violated the condition No.1 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as claimed by the OP vide letter dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure-E ). 9. Now it is established on record that the complainant got lodged the DDR with the police on the date the vehicle was stolen. 10. The vehicle was insured with the insurance company vide cover note No. PF5716159 (Annexure-B) valid from 20.12.2007 to 19.12.2008 for sum assured of Rs.7,04,000/-. As the vehicle had been insured for Rs.7,04,000/- on 20.12.2007 and the accident had happened on 18.12.2008 i.e. one day prior to the expiry of the insurance policy. Therefore, in our considered opinion, some depreciation in the value of the vehicle ought to be made. Keeping in view the same, we order that the value of the vehicle should be reduced by Rs.30,000/- on account of its depreciation. Reliance placed on Dharmendra Goel versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC). 11. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to pay Rs.7,04,000/- to the complainant after deducting Rs.30000/- towards depreciation. The Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the entire amount to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization besides costs of litigation. 12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | 03.08.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D.Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
