Delhi

East Delhi

CC/472/2016

MAHINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.     472/2016                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution             06/09/2016

                                                                                                        Order reserved on             06/02/2018

                                                                                                        Date of Order                     07/02/2018               

In matter of

Mr Manendra Singh, adult

R/o- A-72/4, Keshav Marg

West Vinod Nagar, Delhi 110092……………………….……………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                            

                                                                              Vs

1-The Manager   

M/s Capital Cars Pvt Ltd   

Plot no. 1, Opp. Mother Dairy,  

Patpargunj Industrial Area

Delhi -110092

 

2-The Manager   

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 

101, 1^st Floor J&K Market

Dilshad garden, Delhi  110095……………………………………………….Opponents   

 

Complainant’s Advocate  ………..………..Rajesh Kumara Sharma – Advocate  

Opponent 1…………………...…………………Jitendra Kumar Nanda – AR  

Opponent 2………………………………………Naveen Kumar Chauhan – Advocate

 

Quorum ……….………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur     Member                 

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief - This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for alleged deficiency of services by OP2 for rejecting the claim.  

Facts of the case -                                                                                                   

Complainant purchased a Honda Amaze car from OP1/ M/s Capital Cars Pvt Ltd. on 09/11/2015 vide invoice no. SAL-INV-DDO261516-1608 for a sum of Rs 6,53,100/-having its Chassis no. MAKDF25GHFN109727 and engine no. N15A13016111 (Ex CW1/1).

The said car was insured by OP2 on the spot at the office of OP1 under private car insurance policy cover note vide no. ILG/10193502 with insurance tenure from 09/11/2015 to 08/11/2016 after paying premium of Rs 20,312/-with IDV Rs 629350/-(Ex CW1/2).

It had been stated by the complainant that after taking the car from OP1, reached his house at Retreat Apartment, IP Extension, Delhi and parked car and went home to take some luggage as he had to proceed to his native village. After returning in few minutes, found his new car was not there. After inquiring nearby it was told that some unknown person had taken away the car. Complainant lodged FIR u/s 379 IPC (Ex CW1/3). Later on police submitted ‘UN TRACED’ report (Ex CW1/3A). Simultaneously OP2 was intimated about theft on the same day.

Theft claim was registered (Ex CW1/5&5A) by OP2 and appointed surveyor who completed claim formalities and took all the documents as FIR copy, Insurance policy copy, RC, driving licence and vehicle cash memo receipt copy. After a long period when OP2 failed to give intimation, sent many emails, but did not get any reply. Later complainant received repudiation letter from OP2 (Ex CW1/with the ground that the ‘As per forensic report, both the keys were not genuine’. Complainant personally contacted OP2 for reconsideration of his genuine theft claim, but no reply was given after repudiation. Seeing callous and deficient attitude of OP2, filed this complaint and claimed IDV of car with compensation of Rs 2 lacs and litigation charges Rs 21,000/-

Notices were served. Authorised representative of OP1 filed written statement and denied all the facts related to OP1. It was submitted that the said car was delivered after full satisfaction and proper checking of all the accessories fitted in the car as per the standard requirement and two original keys were handed over (Ex OPW1/1). It was also admitted that the cover note of insurance was issued from their office by the agent of OP2. Rest all the allegations were related to OP2 so they were not awnsarable.

OP2 submitted their written statement and denied all the contents and allegations of complaint as pertaining to deficiency in service by them. It was admitted that the cover note was issued by them and said IDV was correct and had received intimation of theft by complainant and claim of theft was registered vide claim no. MOTO5036614 so appointed a licensed surveyor to assess the loss and detailed report was received by them (Ex OPW1/2) and after going through the statement given by the complainant regarding theft, it was doubtful so  sent both the keys for forensic report. It was observed that the key were not genuine and based on the report, the claim was put under misconcealment of material fact regarding keys which were left inside the vehicle itself amount gross negligence on the part of complainant. So the claim was repudiated as violation of policy terms and conditions (Ex OPW1/3 & 4).

OP2 also relied on various judgments of Apex and NCDRC as Jagdish Prasad vs ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.-II(2013)CPJ 578 NC, OIC vs KK Valsalan, III (2014) CPJ 201 NC, and Avtar Singh vs OIC 2016(I)CPJ 606 NC, where violation of terms and conditions were seen by the complainant. Hence, this complaint was a frivolous so deserves to be dismissed.  

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to OP1 and no reversal was required. He also submitted rejoinder to OP2 replies which were totally wrong and incorrect. It was stated that all the contents of his complaint were true and correct. He also submitted his evidences of affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences on record were correct.

OP1 submitted their evidence through Mr Kamal Manchanda, AR of OP1 as AGM, Legal, submitted evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that their evidence were correct and no facts had been hidden.  

OP2 also submitted their evidences through Mr Vikas Goyal, Manager Legal with OP2 who stated on affidavit that their repudiation was justified and as per the terms and condition of the policy. It was submitted that there was negligence on the part of the complainant who left the ignition keys in the vehicle and submitted duplicate keys to the surveyor which were duly proved by the forensic report.  

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after file perused order was reserved on merit.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant had purchased his said car on 09/11/2014 and was stolen on the same day. This facts was corroborated with the evidences on record. We have also seen the surveyor’s report and forensic report. There were concurrent findings about the authenticity of genuineness of keys as received by surveyor from complaint. We have noticed that the keys were received by the surveyor and were sent to the forensic lab for analysis, but there was nowhere mentioned that keys were ever sent in sealed cover and OP2’s seal or surveyor’s seal. Mere sending analysis of keys, it was reported as both keys were genuine and one key was not matching as per specification. OP2 had also not submitted any standard data of keys of the said car which could be corroborated with the forensic report. So, this contention of OP2 was not acceptable as keys were not genuine based on so called forensic report and their surveyor’s report.  

It was seen and accepted that the said car was purchased from OP1 with genuine two keys and had genuine insurance issued by OP2 and the same car was stolen (without registration no. from RTO, though had received proper registration no. of the car) on the same day and had FIR u/s 379 IPC with untraced report from police. OP2 repudiated the theft claim based on forensic report which had no genuineness.

We relied on the citation as Indian Oil Corporation vs Consumer Protection Council, Kerala (1994) 1 SCC 397, where it was held that reliance has to be placed on the circumstances, documents and conduct of the parties to prove that the relationship between the parties was on Principal to Principal basis and in Hind Motors India Ltd vs Balvinder Singh in RP 3298/2004 and Hind Motors India Ltd vs KK Kalsi in RP 3307/2004 for relationship between the parties. 

 

So, all the allegation of complainant for deficiency of services of OP2 was deficient in reference to Section 1 of Private Car Package Policy under head – Deduction on depreciation’ sub clause 4 table point 1 which state that AGE OF THE VEHICLE AS NOT EXCEEDING 6 MONTHS- % OF DEPRICIATION WOULD BE NIL. Here said car was stolen within 24 hours of its purchase.   

 

Hence, based on the merit of the case and findings, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and that being so, we pass the following order as under—

1. OP2 shall pay the IDV of the car without any deduction within 30 days of receiving of this order.
2. We also award compensation Rs 10,000/-for mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant. This will include litigation charges also.

 

1. If OP2 fails to comply the order in stipulated time, complainant shall be entitled for 6% interest from repudiation of theft claim till realized.
2. OP1 is exonerated from any liability and there shall be no order to cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                             Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member              

                                                          Sukhdev Singh  President