Delhi

East Delhi

CC/284/2015

KANAK LATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 284/15

 

Mrs. Kanak Lata Pandey

W/o Anil Kumar Pandey

R/o N-53A, Near Jagat Ram Park

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi                                                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

ICICI Lombard House,

414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple

Prabha Devi, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400025

 

2. Ms. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
3.  

(Baani Building), Plot No. 5

Commercial Centre, Jasola,

New Delhi – 110 025

 

3. M/s. Sunrise Hyundai

Plot No. 96, Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                 ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 29.05.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 07.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 16.11.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Mrs. Kanak Lata Pandey has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd (OP-2) and M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3) for deficiency in services.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant Mrs. Kanak Lata Pandey purchased a Hyundai Grand i10 diesel model car (sportz) from respondent no. 1 on 26.10.2014, which was got insured on the same day by respondent no. 2 vide policy no. 3001/1H-1017050600000.  Policy was taken on zero depreciation basis as advised by the sales executive of respondent no. 1, which the complainant believed to be covered 99.99% of the damage/loss.  On 17.01.2015, the complainant lost her car remote device during her visit to Lal Quila regarding attending of a program organized by Hindi Academy (Govt. of India).  She filed an online complaint to the Delhi Police regarding the incident.  The intimation regarding loss/theft of the car remote device was also given to the insurance company on 19.01.2015.  The complainant also intimated to respondent no. 2 for loss of remote key, vide Claim Intimation Number MOT04329204.  It is stated that the complainant regularly visited to the office of the respondents but was shocked on the behavior of the respondents.  Hence, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for suffering mental pain and agony and deficiency in services on the part of the respondents. 

3.        In the written statement, filed on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that the complainant was not consumer qua ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), as the complainant lodged a claim bearing no. MOT04329204 with the answering OP for the loss of electronic key of the vehicle, which was not covered under the policy.  They have denied that their executive advised the complainant to have the policy.  It is further stated that they have provided the terms and conditions with the policy.

            In the reply, filed on behalf of M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd    (OP-2), they have stated that there were no averments/allegations/ imputations against them.  The grievance was in respect of rejection of insurance claim by insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1).  it has further been stated that there was no manufacturing defect for which the manufacturer was liable.  Complainant cannot claim compensation or warranty benefit for item loss by her negligence while visiting Lal Quila.

            In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3), they have also taken the plea that the complainant was not consumer qua the answering respondent.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.        In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined herself on affidavit.  She has deposed the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited invoice of car purchase as well as insurance policy (Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B), information given to Delhi Police on 18.01.2015 (Ex.CW1/C) and emails exchanged between the complainant and respondents (Ex.CW1/D).

            In defence, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) have examined Anushka Arya, Assistant Manager (Legal).  She has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.  She has also got exhibited copy of policy certificate and policy terms and conditions (Ex.OPW-1/A), claim intimation sheet (Ex.OPW-1/B) and repudiation letter (Ex.OPW-1/C).

            M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd (OP-2) have examined Manish Kumar, Dy. Manager, Legal & Secretarial.  He has also deposed the facts, which have been stated in the written statement. 

            M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3) have examined Shri V.K. Tyagi, General manager (HR & Admn.).  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.

5.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of           M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd (OP-2) and M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3) that there was no manufacturing defect and the claim was rejected by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3). 

            On the face of it, it is the case of the complainant herself that she got the vehicle insured from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and the claim was rejected by them.  The fact that the claim was rejected by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), there was no privity of contract between the complainant Mrs. Kanak Lata Pandey and M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd (OP-2) and M/s. Sunrise Hyundai  (OP-3).  Both of them cannot be held liable as the complainant was not consumer qua both of them.

            As far as liability of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.     (OP-1) is concerned, the stand taken by them has been that they have rejected the claim for loss of key, which was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  If a look is made to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is noticed that the policy only covers loss or damage due to natural calamities and man-made calamities; personal accident; legal liability due to accidental damage and towing charges up to Rs. 1,500/-.  Since the claim has been made by the complainant for loss of remote sensing device, certainly, the same does not find any place in the cover of the policy.  When the same was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) cannot be held liable for the same.

6.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd (OP-2) and  M/s. Sunrise Hyundai (OP-3).  Hence, her complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President