Delhi

East Delhi

CC/19/2014

HARCHARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                     CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC. No.19/14:

In the matter of:
Sh. Harcharan Sharma,

S/o. Shri Sukhram Sharma,

R/o.7/50, Bheem  Gali,

Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,

Delhi- 110 032                                   

  Complainant

Versus

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Space No. 315, 3^rd Floor,

Aggarwal City Mall,

Plot No. 04, Road No.44,

Pitam Pura,  Delhi

 

Also at:

ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,

Local Shipping Complex,

Karkardooma, Vikas Marg,

Delhi 110 092                                                                                              

Opposite Party

                                                                                                Date of Admission-20/01/2014

                                                                                               Date of Order        - 07/08/2015

 

ORDER

 

SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER

The Complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Respondent, hereinafter to be referred as OP. The facts as contained in the complaint are that the Complainant’s Scooty make Honda Activa Model 2008, bearing Registration No. DL-7SBF-0301, Chassis No. 17782 etc. was under insurance from the OP vide Policy No. 3005/2010042762/0000002790 valid from 27/11/2012 to 26/11/2013. It is further stated in the complaint that on 10/02/2013 at about 2 P.M. his vehicle was found missing from outside his house.  The PCR was contacted on telephone same day and D.D No.39 B was recorded about theft of his Scooty with PS Farah Bazaar which was later on converted into FIR No.85/13 under section 379 IPC. The Untrace Report dated12/04/2013 was communicated by PS Farah Bazar to the Complainant which has been filed along with the complaint.  The Complainant registered a claim with OP vide Claim No. MOTO 2975437 for Rs.25, 444/- which has been rejected vide letter dated 18/11/2013 with the remarks ‘’No Claim.” The Complainant has alleged that the OP is guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as well as Deficiency in Service. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,444/- as cost of vehicle along with interest @ 18%, Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.22, 000/- as litigation expenses.

             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP and it has filed its Written Statement. wherein the OP has raised several Preliminary Objections, mainly stating therein that the Complainant  informed the OP about the theft of the vehicle on 02/03/2013 i.e.  20 days after the theft.  It has also been pleaded by the OP that even the report about the theft of vehicle on 10/02/2013 was made to the police on 01/03/2013. It is averred in the Written Statement that as the OP has been deprived of the right to carry out proper inquiry at the spot of theft of vehicle, place of parking, keys of vehicle, statement of parking attendant and other documents and to trace out the vehicle and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, as such the OP is justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant.

 The Complainant filed his reply/rejoinder repudiating the contentions raised in the WS by the OP but has not filed any Affidavit in support of it. He has, however, alongwith the complaint filed Copies of Registration Certificate of the vehicle, the Cover Note of Insurance Policy, DD Entry No.39 B dated 10/02/2013 of P.S. Farash Bazaar, FIR No. 85/2013, acknowledgement of documents received by Automation Services Solutions, Repudiation Letter issued by the OP and Untrace Report of PS Farash Bazar.

On behalf of OP Affidavit of Shri Vikas Goyal Assistant Manager (Legal) has been filed reiterating the facts as contained in the WS. The OP has filed copy of policy as Ex.OPW-1/A, a copy of investigation report and repudiation letter. In the statement the claim of the Complainant has been denied and prayer made for dismissal of the complaint. The OP has however admitted in the WS that the vehicle was insured with it for the relevant period.  It has also been admitted that it has issued Repudiation Letter dated 18/11/2013 which was duly served on the Complainant giving detailed reasons.

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well documents placed on record.  It is not in dispute that the complainant was the registered owner of the stolen vehicle which was insured with the OP during the relevant period. It is also admitted by the OP that a claim was filed for loss of vehicle, which was repudiated by it.  From the perusal of Repudiation Letter it is evident that the claim has been repudiated on the grounds, firstly, that the vehicle was left unattended with ignition key, secondly, the FIR was lodged after 19 days of theft of vehicle and finally OP was intimated after 20 days of theft.  A careful scrutiny of the documents placed on record reveals that the Investigator of OP had received 2 keys and remarked OK in quality check column, also the theft of vehicle was promptly reported to the police vide DD No.39 B dated 10/02/2013 as such neither the keys were left in the ignition nor there was any delay in reporting the matter to the police authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insured was under an obligation to report the theft immediately to the Insurance Company and, therefore, he ought to have reported the theft on 10/02/2013 itself. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Praveen Chander Chadha Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17/08/2010.

We have gone through the contents of the judgment referred to by the OP and other case law on the subject. In Pravesh Chander Chadha (supra), we find that in that case the theft took place on 18/01/1995 and the matter was reported to the police on 20/01/1995, whereas report was given to the insurance company after four months on 22/05/1995.  Thus, there was a delay of four months in reporting the matter to the insurance company.  On the other hand, in the case before us we find that there was prompt report of theft to the police and delay of 20 days to insurance company would have caused no prejudice to the OP.  Therefore, the facts of the present case are totally different than those of the judgment in Pravesh Chander Chadha (supra).

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the OP should not have repudiated the claim, merely on account of delay in bringing the theft to its knowledge, particularly when there was absolutely no delay in lodging the complaint with the police.  We, therefore, hold the OP deficient in providing services which the complainant was entitled to and allow the complaint.  The OP is reimburse the Complainant Rs.25, 444/-, the sum for which it was assured, with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of complaint till it is actually paid. The OP will be also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and this would include the cost of litigation.  If this amount is not paid within 45 days from the date of order, the OP shall be further liable to pay an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of the order till it is finally paid.

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

 

(SUBHASH GUPTA)                   (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                        (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             MEMBER                                     MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT