CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.242/2017
MR. P.K. JAIN
R/O 174, 1ST FLOOR, SUKHDEV VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110025
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.
4TH FLOOR, RED FORT CAPITAL,
PARASNATH TOWERS,
BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, GOLE MARKET,
NEW DELHI-110001
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:25.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of two wheeler scooter bearing No.DL-3SDB-6047 and the same was comprehensively insured with OP for the period from 25.05.2016 to 24.05.2017. It is stated that the said scooter was parked outside the house in the night of 03.11.2016 and in the morning of 04.11.2016, it was found that some unknown vehicle hit the scooter and the same was damaged. The matter was reported to OP and the scooter was taken to authorized dealer Malwa Motors (P) Ltd. and it was surveyed by OP on 07.11.2016. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.11,379/- and original bills were furnished to OP, however, the amount was not paid.
The Complainant has categorically stated that his scooter was being used by his son with his consent who was having valid driving license. Initially the claim was rejected by OP vide letter dated 24.12.2016 on the ground that son of the complainant Mr. Rajat Jain was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. This was challenged by the complainant and he asked OP to furnish the certificate of RTO which shows that the driving license of his son was not valid. Thereafter the claim was rejected vide letter dated 29.11.2016 on the ground that there was misrepresentation of facts related to the cause of loss. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant sought refund of the amount of Rs.11,379/- with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 20.11.2016 and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and also litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that the complainant is using the car in question for commercial purpose. It is stated that the complainant has manipulated the facts regarding the accident. It is further stated that the accident has taken place on 04.11.2016 and OP was informed on 06.11.2016 after delay of 2 days and the complainant did not bother to make any complaint before the Police and thereby violated condition No.1 of the policy which reads as under:-
Condition no.1. - Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”
It is stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that Mr. Rajat Jain was not having valid driving license on the on the date of loss. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant in rejoinder took the plea that OP is even not aware of the fact that policy is regarding scooter and not a car.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is significant to note that initially the claim was rejected vide letter dated 24.12.2016 stating therein that Mr. Rajat Jain was not having valid driving license. The complainant sent an email to OP on 03.01.2017 requesting OP to download the certificate issued by RTO claiming that the driving license of Mr. Rajat Jain was fake so the matter could be taken with the concerned RTO. The complainant has also written a letter to OP stating therein that even otherwise the validity of driving license is not involved in this case as the vehicle was hit in the night when it was parked outside the house of the complainant.
In fact OP is not clear in his stand. Firstly, OP is not aware whether the vehicle in question is scooter or car. OP rejected the claim that Mr. Rajan Jain was not having a valid driving license but failed to prove on record that the driving license was fake. Even otherwise in this case there is no question of seeing the drive license at all because the vehicle was hit by some unknown vehicle while parked outside the house of the complainant.
Thereafter OP repudiated the claim letter dated 29.11.2016 on the ground that that there is misrepresentation of facts related to the cause of loss. OP has not placed anything on record to show that how they have jumped to this conclusion. No report of the surveyor is placed on record in this regard. The accident took place on the intervening night of 03/04.11.2016. The matter was reported on 06.11.2016 to the insurance company and the vehicle was taken to workshop for repair. The vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor. We do not know on what basis it is stated that there was misrepresentation of facts relating to loss. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
There is no question of violation of clause 1 of the policy as OP was informed and OP has never rejected the claim on the ground of violation of clause 1 of the policy.
It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,379/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from December 2016. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
