DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/101/2022
Date of Institution: 31.03.2022
Date of Decision: 19.07.2024
Amarjit Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, R/o Dhaliwal Patti, Village Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, TF 1 5, Third 88, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory;
2. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, Regd. Office ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: Ms. Himani Bansal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant Amarjit Kaur filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, TF 1 5, Third 88, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is the registered owner of one White Coloured Scooter make “Honda Activa” having Engine No. JF91EG0299246, Chassis No. ME4JF913LLG3000248, Registration No. PR-19T-7994 and the same was purchased by the complainant from Global Automobiles, Dhanaula Road, Barnala on 2.1.2021 and the said scooter was insured by opposite party No. 1 for the period from 2.1.2021 to 1.1.2022 under insurance certificate cum policy No. 3005/2012280812/00/0000001450 for the said insured amount of Rs. 64,519/-. It is further alleged that the registration pertaining to the said Scooter was applied by the complainant in his name at D.T.O Office-cum-Registering Authority (M.V) Barnala and the said registration was done in the name of the complainant. It is alleged that on 20.08.2021 the son of the complainant namely Kamaldeep Singh, who is posted as Senior Computer Operator at Sewa Kendar, Backside Prem Pardhan Market, Barnala, in routine in the morning parked the said Honda Activa in the street outside of above said Sewa Kendar, Barnala but when in evening the son of the complainant after completing his duty in the abovesaid office, came out outside of the said office then he found that the said Honda Activa is not there and he tried his best to trace out the same but with no result as the said Honda Activa has been stolen by some unknown person alongwith requisite papers lying in the said scooter and regarding the said incident FIR No.0420 dated 22.08.2021 was registered under section 379 IPC on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant's son Kamaldeep Singh and the aforementioned facts were also intimated by the complainant to opposite party No.1 and complainant submitted the requisite documents in the first week of September 2021. It is further alleged that vide aforesaid Insurance Policy, the opposite parties are duty bound to indemnify the complainant against the damage/theft of his said Scooter and the complainant has suffered the great loss and submitted all the requisite documents to opposite party No.1 for taking the insurance claim of Rs.64,519/-. But the opposite party No.1 did not turn up to disburse the said claim amount despite many personal visits and repeated requests by the complainant and ultimately vide its Ref. No.51221665002 dated 05.12.2021 refused to pay the claim of theft of the said vehicle to the complainant. It is alleged that apart from this the Smt. Sucheta Ashish Dev, Ld. Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat, Barnala issued the order regarding untrace report on 11.12.2021. Thereafter, many times the opposite party No. 1 & 2 contacted personally as well as telephonically but they did not bother to hear the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties to pay the aforementioned insurance claim amount of Rs. 64,519/- alongwith upto date interest.
2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply by taking legal objections on the grounds that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under C.P. Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant parked the vehicle and kept the vehicle ignition key in the vehicle and this is gross negligent act of leaving the vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition led to the incidence of insured asset being stolen.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant lodged the FIR in question, but as per statement of complainant made before the police as recorded in the FIR itself, he had left the keys in the vehicle and parked the vehicle in the street unattended. It is admitted to the extent that the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties and submitted the documents and refusal of the claim of the complainant with the reasons mentioned therein and issuance of order regarding untraced report on 11.12.2021. However, the complainant is not entitled to any claim from the opposite parties due to his own negligence as stated above. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement on 9.9.2022 that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, copy of Tax Invoice as Ex.C-2, copy of Policy as Ex.C-3 (containing 2 pages), copy of FIR as Ex.C-4 (containing 4 pages), copy of Untracable report as Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 08.11.2021 as Ex.C-6, copy of rejection letter dated 05.12.2021 as Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of insurance policy as Ex.OPs-1 (containing 20 pages), affidavit of Divyam Suri as Ex.OPs-2, copies of letters dated 05.12.2021, 08.11.2021 are Ex.OPs-3 & OPs-4 respectively, copy of investigation report as Ex.OPs-5 (containing 28 pages) and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is the registered owner of one White Coloured Scooter make “Honda Activa” having Engine No. JF91EG0299246, Chassis No. ME4JF913LLG3000248, Registration No. PR-19T-7994 and said scooter was insured by opposite party No. 1 for the period from 2.1.2021 to 1.1.2022 under insurance certificate cum policy No. 3005/2012280812/00/0000001450 for the said insured amount of Rs. 64,519/-. It is further argued on 20.08.2021 the son of the complainant who is posted as Senior Computer Operator at Sewa Kendar, Backside Prem Pardhan Market, Barnala, in routine in the morning parked the said Honda Activa in the street outside of above said Sewa Kendar, Barnala, but when in evening the son of the complainant after completing his duty in the above said office, came out outside of the said office then he found that the said Honda Activa is not there and he tried his best to trace out the same but with no result as the said Honda Activa has been stolen by some unknown person alongwith requisite papers lying in the said scooter and regarding the said incident FIR No.0420 dated 22.08.2021 (Ex.C-4) was registered under section 379 IPC on the basis of statement suffered by the complainant's son Kamaldeep Singh and the aforementioned facts were also intimated by the complainant to opposite party No.1 and complainant submitted the requisite documents in the first week of September 2021. It is further argued that vide aforesaid Insurance Policy, the opposite parties are duty bound to indemnify the complainant against the damage/theft of his said Scooter and the complainant submitted all the requisite documents to opposite party No.1 for taking the insurance claim of Rs.64,519/-, but the opposite party No.1 did not turn up to disburse the said claim amount despite many personal visits and repeated requests by the complainant and ultimately vide its Ref. No.51221665002 dated 05.12.2021 (Ex.C-7) refused to pay the claim of theft of the said vehicle to the complainant. It is argued that apart from this Smt. Sucheta Ashish Dev, Ld. Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat, Barnala issued the order regarding untrace report on 11.12.2021. It is further argued that the complainant many times contacted the opposite parties personally as well as telephonically but they did not bother to hear the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further argued that the complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant parked the vehicle and kept the vehicle ignition key in the vehicle and this is gross negligent act of leaving the vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition led to the incidence of insured asset being stolen. It is further argued that the complainant lodged the FIR in question but as per statement of complainant made before the police as recorded in the FIR itself, he had left the keys in the vehicle and parked the vehicle in the street unattended, so the complainant is not entitled to any claim from the opposite parties due to his own negligence as stated above.
11. It is established from the FIR Ex.C-4 that the complainant left the keys of the alleged vehicle in the vehicle ignition. Therefore, it is clear cut violation of the condition of the insurance policy and it is clear that this is gross negligence act of leaving vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant was not taking reasonable care to safeguard the insured property. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that if there is any negligence on the part of the complainant then the claim of the complainant may be settled on non standard basis after 75% of the admissible claim in the case of violation of certain conditions of the policy. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also submitted the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 561 of 2017 decided on 27.2.2020 in case titled Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sachin Yadav vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held in the said judgment that the violation in respect of the fact that due care and precaution was not taken for safeguarding the vehicle by the driver as the keys were left inside the vehicle and the vehicle was parked at a distance place without any watch and ward. The Hon’ble National Commission partly allowed the said complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the claim on non standard basis. In the above said judgment the Hon’ble National Commission directed to pay 60% of the IDV value as there were two conditions of policy was violated. But Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that in the present case the insurance company repudiated the claim on the breach of single condition, therefore the complainant is entitled minimum 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle in question.
12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, facts, evidence and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 48,389.25/- (i.e. @ 75% of IDV value of the vehicle) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,500/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
19th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
