Delhi

North East

CC/2/2020

Sh. Rishi Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 02/2020

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri  Rishi Kumar Gupta S/o  Sh. M.L. Gupta R/o K-18/4, Street No. 13, Gangotri Vihar, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Branch Office:- Ist Floor, Unit No.101,Station Box At Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110095   Head Office:- ICICI Lombard House, 414, P. Balu Marg, Off Veer Sawarkar, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025	Opposite Party

 

 

[

ATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

06.01.20 02.11.22 10.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the    Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a motor insurance policy from Opposite Party for his vehicle TVS Jupiter having registration no. DL-5S-AZ-1380 dated 29.03.19 having policy no. 3005/2011851397/80/0000000483 for the period 30.03.19 to 29.03.20. The Complainant stated that on 25.05.19 the daughter in law of Complainant was riding the scooty and an accident occurred as the scooty in question catches fire and she had made a call to police helpline number and police and fire tender reached at the place of accident. The Complainant stated that the police official told to took only the number plate of scooty in question and thereafter the Complainant lodged a complaint vide complaint no. 08787996 by calling customer care of Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that he went to Police Station Wazirabad and police official lodged a NCR No. 17/2019 U/s 427 IPC dated 25.05.19. The Complainant also stated that investigating officer demanded burned part of scooty in question but the Complainant has only number plate and also stated that the chassis in question is also stolen from accident spot and in this regard Complainant’s daughter in law lodged an FIR bearing no. ND-WAZ-000447/2019, U/s 379 IPC dated 28.05.19 at Police Station Wazirabad. The Complainant stated that he had lodged the complaint and also provided all the necessary documents to representative of Opposite Party namely Jagat Singh. The Complainant stated that he had called on 03.12.19 to know the status of his claim but he came to know that his claim has been rejected and intimation of the same was not given to him by Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that he approached Opposite Party officials again and requested for making the payment of IDV but Opposite Party did not entertain the request of Complainant. The Complainant had also served legal notice dated 10.12.19 on both addresses of Opposite Party through speed post on 12.12.19 which was duly received by Opposite Party on 13.12.19 and 16.12.19 but Opposite Party did not give any reply. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 48,000/- i.e. the IDV value of the vehicle in question and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.  

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant intimated Opposite Party regarding damages to vehicle cause in fire incident dated 25.05.19, the Opposite Party immediately registered claim no. MOT-08787996 and appointed duly licensed & independent surveyor for spot inspection, to investigate the incident, collect documents, to assess the net liability of Opposite Party by examining the damaged vehicle, recorded the statement of witnesses and to assist the Complainant for processing of the claim.
3. Opposite Party further requested the Complainant to shift the vehicle to authorized service centre for repairing estimate on the basis of this surveyor could have assess the loss, but the Complainant failed to do so for thus the Opposite Party issued the letter dated 28.05.19 to Complainant followed with reminder letter dated 01.06.19 and closed the claim as the vehicle not reported to service centre/garage. 
4. It is further stated that there was gross-negligence on the part of Complainant by leaving the salvage at the spot of incident, without taking any precautionary measures or giving it in police custody against proper receipt as the fire was extinguished by Fire Fighting Department amount to violation of Condition No.5 of the policy, therefore the claim was rightly close and Opposite Party are not liable to pay the claim.
5. Opposite Party also stated that consequential losses/damages are not covered under this policy, therefore the theft of vehicle is not covered under this policy, rather the entire case appears to be fraudulent, as the version of incident as stated by Complainant is totally false, misconceived and concocted, as the fire broke out in the back portion of the vehicle first and then the entire vehicle covered in fire, then how come the backside number plate was removed from vehicle for taking photographs, and even it is not clear whether the insured vehicle was burnt in the fire incident as neither the Fire Fighting Department, nor Police authorities nor surveyor could verify the Engine and Chassis number of burnt vehicle, and before any such verification the salvage was alleged to be stolen, which shows highly suspicious circumstances whether it was the same insured vehicle which damaged in the fire or it was different vehicle burnt intentionally to claim the benefits under the policy by manipulation of another vehicle, therefore,  both the incidents following each other in such suspicious circumstances causes serious doubts and fraudulent manipulated contents in the claim.
6. Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant wilfully violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy by leaving the wreck of vehicle unsafe on main road in no-parking area, unattended. The Opposite Party prayed to dismissal of the complaint.   

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

7. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.
9. Evidence of the Opposite Party

In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Atalanta Chakrabarti, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

10. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that the he has purchased the motor insurance policy from Opposite Party for his scooty having registration no. DL-5S-AZ-1380 dated 29.03.19 having policy no. 3005/2011851397/80/0000000483 for the period 30.03.19 to 29.03.20. It is stated by Complainant that on 25.05.19 the daughter in law of Complainant was riding the scooty and an accident occurred as the scooty in question catches fire and she had made a call to police helpline number and police and fire tender reached at the place of accident. The Complainant lodged an FIR with the Police Station Wazirabad on 25.05.19. The Complainant also stated that the burnt parts of the scooty in question was stolen from accident spot and in this regard Complainant’s daughter in law lodged an FIR on 28.05.19 at Police Station Wazirabad. The Complainant filed his claim with the Opposite Party along with all necessary documents but his claim was rejected.
11.  On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant intimated Opposite Party regarding damages to vehicle caused in fire incident on 25.05.19, the Opposite Party immediately registered claim and appointed duly licensed & independent surveyor for spot inspection, to investigate the incident, collect documents, to assess the net liability of Opposite Party by examining the damaged vehicle, recorded the statement of witnesses and to assist the Complainant for processing of the claim. Opposite Party further requested the Complainant to shift the vehicle to authorized service centre for repairing estimate on the basis of this surveyor could have assess the loss, but the Complainant failed to do so thus the Opposite Party issued the letter dated 28.05.19 to Complainant followed with reminder letter dated 01.06.19 and closed the claim as the vehicle not reported to service centre/garage. 
12. It is further stated by Opposite Party that there was gross-negligence on the part of Complainant by leaving the salvage at the spot of incident, without taking any precautionary measures or giving it in police custody against proper receipt as the fire was extinguished by Fire Fighting Department amount to violation of Condition No.5 i.e. consequential losses/damages of the policy, therefore the claim was rightly close and Opposite Party are not liable to pay the claim.
13. Opposite Party also stated that consequential losses/damages are not covered under this policy, therefore the theft of vehicle is not covered under this policy, rather the entire case appears to be fraudulent and even it is not clear whether the insured vehicle was burnt in the fire incident as neither the Fire Fighting Department, nor Police authorities nor surveyor could verify the Engine and Chassis number of burnt vehicle, and before any such verification the salvage was alleged to be stolen, which shows highly suspicious circumstances whether it was the same insured vehicle which damaged in the fire or it was different vehicle. Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant wilfully violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy by leaving the wreck of vehicle unsafe on main road in no-parking area, unattended.
14.  It is the fact that Complainant vehicle was insured from 30.03.19 to 29.03.20 during which the fire incident was occurred so insurance policy was valid at the time of fire incident. NCR FIR of Police Station clearly mentioned that the fire incident was occurred with regard to scooty no. DL5 SAZ 1380 and the scooty was totally burnt. The Report of Delhi Fire Service also mentioned the fire incident with regard to scooty registration no. DL5 SAZ 1380. So, there is no doubt in our mind that subject scooty was burnt in fire incident for which Complainant is having the valid policy at the time of incident.
15.  In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV values of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs. 48,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.  
16. Order announced on 10.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President