Delhi

South II

CC/3/2022

MRS. ALKA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2022

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/3/2022
( Date of Filing : 05 Jan 2022 )
 
1. MRS. ALKA SINGH
Ms. ALKA SINGH W/O LATE Sh. KARAN SINGH R/O 28, THIRD FLOOR, BAZAR LANE JUNGPURA BHOGAL, JUNGPURA, DELHI 110014
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ICICI LOMBARD
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. FOURTH FLOOR, PARSAVNATH CAPITAL TOWER, BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Monika Aggarwal Srivastava PRESIDENT
  Dr. Rajender Dhar MEMBER
  Rashmi Bansal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None.
......for the Complainant
 
None.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 30 Jun 2022
Final Order / Judgement

                         CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

 

Case No.03/2022

 

Ms. ALKA SINGH

W/O LATE Sh. KARAN SINGH

R/o 28, THIRD FLOOR, BAZAR LANE

JUNGPURA BHOGAL, JUNGPURA,

  1. …..COMPLAINANT

 

Vs.

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd.

FOURTH FLOOR, PARSAVNATH CAPITAL TOWER,

BHAI VEER SINGH MARG,

NEW DELHI -110001

 

ALSO AT:-

ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE,

414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG,

NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI

MUMBAI -400025

  1. …..RESPONDENT/ OP 

         

 

Date of Institution-05.01.2022

           Date of Order- 30.06.2022

 

  O R D E R

RASHMI BANSAL– Member

 

  1. The case is at the admission stage. The preliminary question for determination is whether complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
  2. Briefly stated facts are that the complainant’s husband, who was the consumer and policy holder of OP, expired on 23.12.2019 due to heart attack. He had an insurance policy from OP for his vehicle, Baleno Delta petrol, bearing registration number DL10CK8221, in which the complainant was the nominee. 
  3. The insurance of the said vehicle got due on 05.04.2020, and the same was renewed by complainant by paying premium to OP for the insurance from 05.04.2020 - 04.04.2021.
  4. The said vehicle was stolen on 15.12.2020 and complainant got a FIR registered on the same day. The complainant applied to OP for claim of the vehicle, being the nominee of policy holder, which was rejected by OP vide its email dated 24.06.2021, on the basis of non-insurable interest, (insured Mr. Karan Singh expired on 23.12.2019 but neither changed name in the insurance policy and nor the ownership of the said vehicle transferred).
  5. Complainant submitted that after the death of registered owner, i.e. her husband, she was in a state of shock, the responsibilities of bringing up the children came on her shoulder, she works in a hospital and due to ongoing pandemic, she could neither intimate the OP nor got the vehicle transferred in her name but she continued the policy and paid the premium in time. However, her requests were turned down by OP, therefore, complainant has filed present complainant seeking allowance of claim alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
  6. Considering admitted case of the complainant, this is established that the registration certificate and the insurance policy were in the name of complainant’s husband, who  was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of theft and the information with respect to change in the name

of the owner / insured was not given to OP, which is the mandatory requirement under General Regulation 17 (G.R.-17) of India Motor Tariff and Section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under such circumstances, the complainant has not become insured of the O.P., and consequently is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

  1. So far as the payment / renewal of the policy concerned, the policy cannot be issued/ renewed in the name of dead person. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kiran Banerjee & Ors. vs National Insurance Company & Ors. MAC.APP. 700/2019, in order dated 29.07.2019, has held that, “In the present case, the policy holder had passed away on 24.05.2012 and the accident happened on 19.10.2014. In the interim, the Insurance Company was never informed about this very crucial information that the policy holder had passed away. In the circumstance, the policy itself would have ended on the expiry of its tenure or could not have otherwise been issued against a dead person.”
  2. In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed in limine.
  3. File may be consigned to record room after providing the copy of the order to complainant free of cost.
  4. Order be uploaded on website www.confonet.nic.in.
  5. Order contains 3 number of pages, each bearing my signature.

 

 

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)              (RASHMI BANSAL)        (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)

       MEMBER                                          MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 
 
[ Monika Aggarwal Srivastava]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Dr. Rajender Dhar]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Rashmi Bansal]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.