Haryana

Kurukshetra

75/16-2018

Akash Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

21 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint case No.75 of 2016.

Date of instt: 11.3.2016. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 21.09.2018.

Akash Bhardwaj son of Rajesh Sharma, House No.250, Weavers Colony, Panipat-132103, Haryana.

                                                                  …Complainant. 

                        Versus      

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-3, Sector-8, Karnal.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabadevi, Mumbai.

…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present:      Complainant in person.

 Sh. Mohit Goel, Adv. for the Ops.

 

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Akash Bhardwaj, complainant against the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & another, the opposite parties.

2.            The above-said complaint was dismissed by this Forum vide order dt. 14.03.2017 which has been set-aside by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 05.02.2018 and the case has been remanded back to District Forum with the direction to decide the matter afresh. 

3.             Brief facts of the present complaint that the complainant is registered owner of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR-06AF9069 bearing Engine No.HA11EJF9C60093 chassis No.MBOLHA11ALF9C56342 which was insured with the Ops and paid Rs.1553/- as gross premium.  It is alleged that in the intervening night of 13/14^th January, 2016, some unknown person stole many parts of the motor cycle which was safely parked in the colony after locking it in the parking.  The unknown person stole seat, petrol tank, battery and many other costly parts of the motor cycle.  It is further alleged that in the morning, FIR was lodged to the nearest police station. It is further alleged that after filing the claim, the vehicle was brought in the Minhas Automobiles and at that time the agency owner took the photos and he also called the ICICI Lombard agent. The agent of the OPs assured that the claim will be paid as per FIR. The complainant made several representations and calls to the Ops for making payment of the insured amount but the Ops refused to pay the claim on the ground that it is a partial theft.  The complainant spent a sum of Rs.13,373/- for the new parts and as such, he is entitled for the above said amount from the Ops. The complainant visited the office of Ops time and again and requested to pay a sum of Rs.13,373/- but they did not pay any heed. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay Rs.13,373/-, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.

4.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing the written statement taking certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the true and material facts so as to get the claim amount. The true facts of the case are that no claim has been lodged with the answering Ops before filing the present complaint or after filing the complaint. The complainant submitted some relevant documents to the company and going through the documents as provided by the complainant, the company has repudiated the claim on the ground that as per exclusions of the policy can be read as: consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical or electrical breakdown failures of breakages nor for damage caused by overloading or strain of the insured vehicle nor for loss or damage to the accessories by burglary, housebreaking or theft unless such insured vehicle is stolen at the same time. Therefore, the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. On merits, the preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.             The complainant in his evidence proved on record his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of FIR as Ex.C1, complaint letters as Ex.C2 & C3, invoice as Ex.C4, photo stat copy of  delivery reports as Ex.C5 & C6, terms and conditions of policy as Ex.C7, claim form as Ex.C8 and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.            On the other hand, the Ops proved on record affidavit of Karan Nagala, Legal Manager as Ex.RW1/A, photo-stat copy of letter dated October 1, 2016 as Ex.R1 and terms and conditions of policy as Ex.R2 and thereafter closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.            From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant got insured the motor-cycle in question with the Ops for the period valid w.e.f. 16.05.2015 to 15.05.2016.  It is also not disputed that some parts of the vehicle were stolen on 13/14.01.2016 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy and FIR was also got registered.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to the claim amount of Rs.13,373/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that he submitted the claim of Rs.13,373/- with the Ops but despite several visits and representations, the Ops did not settle the said claim.  From perusal of record available on the file, we find that the repudiation of claim made by the Ops is not correct.  So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the claim to the tune of Rs.13,373/- from the Ops.  Hence, the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient on their part while rendering services to the complainant.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the amount of Rs.13,373/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.09.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member