Delhi

East Delhi

CC/749/2015

MO. ARPHAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 749/15

 

Mohd. Arshad

S/o Shri Aas Mohd.

R/o A-113, A Block

New Seelampur

Delhi- 110 053                                                                     ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Manager

DDA Market, 1^st Floor,

101, J&K Market, Dilshad Garden

Delhi – 110 095

 

2. Bagga Link Motors Ltd.

Through its Manager/Director

395, Patparganj Industrial Estate

Delhi – 110 092                                                                …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 26.09.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 13.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 24.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Mohd. Arshad against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant insured his Maruti Swift  car bearing registration no. DL2CAS9935 with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) for IDV of Rs. 4,62,896/- vide policy no. 3001/MI02724826/00/000 w.e.f. 31.05.2015 to 30.05.2016. 

            On 04.06.2015, while the car was in use by a paternal relative of the complainant, it met with an accident for which the intimation was given to OP-1 and damaged car lodged with M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) for repair on instruction of OP-1.  The complainant delivered all the papers and signed whatever was sought by the surveyor of OP-1

            It was stated that OP-2 started to threaten levy of parking charges as OP-1 withheld the approval of repair without any reason and finally repudiated his claim citing “Non Insurable Interest” vide letter dated 31.07.2015.

            A legal notice dated 25.08.2015 was sent by the complainant which was neither replied nor complied. 

            Despite repeated requests of the complainant, OP-2 made the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance against repair before starting the repair work. 

            It was further stated that the complainant was harassed by OPs.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OPs to get the car repaired free of cost; Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation for delay in settlement of claim;           Rs.50,000/- compensation for harassment & mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of litigation and not to charge any charges for the said car.

3.         In the Written Statement filed on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1), they have taken various pleas such as no due intimation was given to OP regarding the accident; the vehicle was sold by the complainant to Mr. Jamil Ahmed on 01.10.2014, but                Mr. Jamil Ahmad never get the RC and policy of vehicle transferred in his name, therefore, the complainant was not having any insurable interest; regarding the accident occurred on 04.06.2015, one FIR was registered against the driver and OP was intimated for the same on 23.06.2015. 

            It was stated in the Final Investigation Report that the complainant sold the vehicle to Mr. Jamil Ahmad.  In the Final Survey Report dated 24.07.2015, the liability was assessed as Rs. 23,135/- as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground “Non Insurable Interest” vide letter dated 31.07.2015.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of registration certificate (Annex. C-1), copy of insurance policy (Annex. C-2), copy of repudiation letter (Annex. C-3), copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipts (Annex. C-4), copy of letter dated 13.10.2015 (Ex. CW1/5), copy of envelope in respect of refusal of OP-1 to accept the letter dated 13.10.2015 (Ex. CW1/6) and copy of bill for Rs. 57,580/- (Ex. CW1/7).   

            In defence, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) have examined Shri Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager (Legal), who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of policy certificate alongwith terms and conditions of policy      (Ext. OPW-1/A), copy of FIR (Ext. OPW-1/B), copy of Final Investigation Report dated 12.09.2014 (Ext. OPW-1/C), copy of statement of complainant on affidavit dated 18.11.2014 (Ext. OPW-1/C), copy of statement of complainant on affidavit dated 18.11.2014 duly notarized by the complainant (Ext. OPW-1/C1), copy of report dated 24.07.2015 (Ext. OPW-1/D) and copy of repudiation letter dated 31.07.2015 (Ext. OPW-1/E).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1).  At the outset, it is noticed from the proceedings that complainant have made M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) as one of the party, but no order has been passed in the daily orders against OP-2, though, they did not file any reply/appear.  Since they did not file any reply and put their appearance, they stands proceeded ex-parte. 

            The main plea which has been taken on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) has been that the complainant sold the vehicle.  However, counsel for complainant have stated that the complainant had never sold the car, but it was used by one of his relative.

            In the testimony of Shri Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager (Legal) of OP-1, they have only placed on record documents such as affidavit which was collected by the investigating agency stating that he has sold the vehicle to Mr. Jamil Ahmad.  This is the only plea which has been taken on behalf of OP-1.  The insurance company have appointed two surveyors and the final survey report of dated 24.07.2015 alongwith assessment sheet assessing the liability was of Rs. 23,135/-. 

            No doubt, the complainant have submitted in his affidavit during the investigation that he has sold the vehicle to Mr. Jamil Ahmad, but this will not absolve the insurance company from its liability.  Neither the registration of the vehicle nor the insurance policy has been transferred in the name of Mr. Jamil Ahmad.  It has remained in the name of the complainant.  As long as the registration of the vehicle and the insurance policy have remained in the name of the complainant, the complainant have every right to file the claim against the insurance company.  Therefore, by repudiating the claim of the complainant by the insurance company on the ground of ‘Non Insurable Interest’, the insurance company have been deficient in their services.  By repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground of ‘Non Insurance Interest’, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

            From the record, it is noticed that the vehicle has been lying with M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) who was to repair the vehicle and hand it over to the complainant.  The vehicle has remained with M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) as OP-1 have repudiated the claim.  M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) was to carry the repair on the instructions of OP-1 and OP-1 having repudiated the claim, M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) was under no obligation to get the vehicle repaired.  Thus, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2).  No doubt, the vehicle has remained parked at M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2), the parking charges, if any, have to be paid by OP-1 as there has been deficiency in their service.

            We, therefore, order that OP-1 shall get the vehicle repaired from M/s. Bagga Link Motors Ltd. (OP-2) on paying an amount of Rs. 23,135/- as per their survey report.  Further, we award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain and agony which includes the cost of litigation.  This order be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of order.   

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

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                                President