Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 38/01.03.2021
Sh. Anil Kapoor s/o Sh. Kaka Singh Kapoor,
R/o 53/24, Second Floor, Ramjas Road,
Delhi-110008 (through his S.P.A. Sh. Rakesh Kumar) …Complainant
Versus
M/s Liberty General Insurance Limited.
(through its General Manager)
At 890-893, 8th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower-II,
Plot No. E-4, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 01.03.2021
Coram: Date of Order: 10.05.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievance against OP that despite insurance cover for his vehicle, which was stolen on 22.11.2020, during the currency of insurance policy, the OP failed to settle the claim despite requests and legal notice. That is why the complaint for theft loss of vehicle and damages in lieu of harassment suffered.
1.2. The complaint is opposed by the OP that neither there is any deficiency of services nor the OP is liable to pay any claim amount, since the vehicle was not insured for “own damages” for date of theft but for third party insurance, that is why the claim is not made out.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainant took insurance policy bearing no. 201120010219800105600000 on 30.05.2019 (briefly insurance policy) from the OP in respect of his vehicle bearing registration no. DL-10-CM-6529 model Creta 1.6, CRDI Auto SX, make Hyundai, chassis no. MALC381UMKM572198 (hereinafter as the vehicle), however, the vehicle was stolen, matter was reported to the police, an FIR no. 030230 was registered by e-P.S. District Crime Branch, Delhi. The police started the investigation as per law. The complainant immediately informed the OP about theft of vehicle and lodging of FIR, the complainant was advised to write his grievances by e-mail, which was also complied. The complainant was also advised to wait for reply of email.
2.2. However, the complainant was informed by email that he is not entitled for benefit under the policy, it shocked and surprised him, since the complainant has paid the premium of policy, the vehicle is covered within the terms and tenure of policy and OP was bound to extend benefit under the risk covered. The complainant was requesting the OP repeatedly to consider the claim but there was no response. Finally, the complainant was constraint to send legal notice dated 19.12.2020 through his counsel, the notice was served on the OP but there was no compliance or reply to that notice; the OP is bound to pay the amount as per guidelines of Government. The complainant is a consumer.
Since there is non-settlement of the claim, it is deficiency of services. The complainant suffered harassment mentally and physically from the acts of OP, he is entitled for insurance claim amount of theft loss of Rs. 14,44,375/- besides damages of Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of harassment.
2.3. The complaint is accompanied with copies of – legal notice dated 19.12.2020 with postal receipt, registration certificate, insurance policy, rough site plan prepared by PS. D.B.G. Road, statement of complainant recorded by the police and FIR.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The complaint is opposed by filing compact written statement, with reiteration of similar facts, briefly that the vehicle was insured with the OP by the complainant for a period of one year for “own damages” from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2020 and also for “third party cover” for a period of 3 year from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2022 as per terms of the policy issued. There are IRDAI guidelines that insurers are bound to issue liability cover for new private car compulsorily for 3 years in view of the directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is also a circular in reference to writ petition no. 295/2012 S Rajaseekaran Vs. Union of India (para-7 of the preliminary submission reproduces those directions in respect of insurance policy cover being mandatory for 3 year in respect of third party insurance cover for new car and 5 year insurance policy for third party insurance cover for new two wheeler either as a separate product or a part of comprehensive insurance product. In terms thereof the insurance policy cover was granted from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2022 for 3 years but own damage cover, being optional and non-statutory in nature, was opted for a period of 1 year by the insured and accordingly the policy cover was from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2020. The said own damage cover had expired on 29.05.2020, therefore, the episode of theft took place on 22.11.2020 was not admissible under the policy. The complaint is beyond the review of insurance cover and consequently the complainant is without cause of action, it is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer.
3.2. The reply is accompanied with copy of insurance policy and extract of circular.
4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed replication by denying the allegations of written statement of OP, he reaffirms the complaint correct. Since there was Covid-19 pandemic wave and the Government of India had declared lockdown from March 2020 and it was also declared that expiry date of documents like insurance will further extend as it is, consequently, the vehicle is covered under the policy as rules and regulations. The complainant is entitled for relief claimed as he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and risk is also cover under the policy.
5.1.(Evidence)- The complainant Sh. Anil Kapoor led evidence filing his exclusive detailed affidavit coupled with documents filed in support of complaint, which is on the pattern of complaint; separate affidavit u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is filed in respect of electronic evidence.
5.2. OP led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of Shri Shreyas Thakur, Chief Manager Legal, which is on the pattern of written statement.
6.1. (Final hearing)-The OP had filed their written arguments, which are blend of the pleadings and evidence, their features have already been referred during detail of case of the OP. They are not being repeated here. However, the complainant has not filed the written arguments.
6.2. Shri G. K. Chauhan, Advocate for complainant and Bharti Verma, Advocate for OP presented their respective oral submissions. The contention filed in writing and orally need not to be reproduced, as it will be dealt appropriately, while appreciating the case of parties. Moreover, the OP has also placed on record notification no. RT 11036/35/2020 MVL dated 27.12.2020 issued by Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways to emphasize that the documents enumerated are fitness, permit (all type), driving licence, registration or other concerned documents under the Motor Vehicle Act and this notification does not extend to insurance policy.
7.1 (Findings)- The case of both the sides are considered in keeping in view their rival contentions, material on record in the form of evidence, notification cited and provisions of law.
7.2. After considering facts, features and other circumstances of the case, the following conclusions are drawn –
(i) The complainant and the OP both have proved the subject insurance policy and there are three parts of the insurance policy for its tenure viz. section-I (own damage) from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2020); section-II (liability) from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2022 and section-III (PA owner-driver) from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2022. These features are undisputed features of the policy.
(ii) In ‘own damage’ insurance cover, it provides coverage for episode of damages, which includes accident, theft, natural calamities. But in ‘third party’ insurance covers the liabilities arising from damages to third party vehicles, property or bodily injuries caused by the insured vehicle.
(iii) The insurance policy bearing no. 201120010219800105600000 for own damage cover is from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2020 as mentioned section-I thereof. The date of theft episode is of 22.11.2020, it is not within the tenure of this policy of Own damage. Thus, the risk is not covered.
(iv) The complainant contends that under certain guidelines by the Government of India, the validity of documents were extended, however, OP has proved notification dated 27.12.2020 (supra) in respect of documents expired since 01.02.2020 or would expire by 31.12.2020 the same might to treated valid till 31.12.2020 and expired from 01.02.2020 or would expire by 31.03.2021, to be treated as valid till 31.03.2021 but insurance policy is not falling within those documents of notification.
(v) By reconciling these aspect it can be concluded that subject vehicle was not insured for own damages purposes on 22.11.2020 under the said policy bearing no. 201120010219800105600000 (for own damage cover) from 30.05.2019 to 29.05.2020. However, the complainant is a consumer but there is no deficiency of services by OP in this episode of theft claim.
7.3. In view of above, the complaint fails. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Announced on this 10th day of May 2024 [वैशाख 20, साका 1946] . Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[ijs52]
Item no. 13
CC- no.38/2021
10.05.2024 - [Proceedings]
Appearance – Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AR of complainant.
None for OP.
It is scheduled today for final orders. By separate reasoned order authored by the President of this Commission, announced and signed today, the complainant is dismissed as concluded in the final order. The parties are apprised of right of appeal. The file be consigned to record room after proper pagination. [AR for complainant requests that the free copy is to be provided to him physically in the Commission, the Registry is directed to provide free copy under acknowledgement as per rules].
[Rashmi Bansal] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member (Female) President