Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/292/2021

Dr. Anirudh Kumar Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mukti Sharma

02 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/292/2021
Date of Institution	:	29/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/02/2024

Dr. Anirudh Kumar Arya, Ward no.7, Vivek Hospital Sitalpur Baddi, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP) 173205.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Parbha Devi Mumbai 400025.

2.     M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through its branch office 4^th Floor "The Statement" plot no.149 Industrial Area Phase 1, next to Hometel Hotel Chandigarh UT 160002 through its Branch Manager

3.     M/s Krishna Motors Garage, No. 178 Elante Mall, MW Area Phase 1, Business Block Industrial Area Chandigarh 160002 through its Proprietor/Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Anuj Thakur, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kartik Advocate, Proxy for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs 1 & 2
	:	Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for OP-3.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Dr.Anirudh Kumar Arya, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 15.1.2020, complainant purchased an SUV - Hector DE 20 MT sharp model (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”) for an amount of ₹16,41,600/ and got the same insured from OPs 1 & 2/insurer vide insurance policy (Annexure C-2) which was valid w.e.f 15.1.2020 to 14.1.2021.  On 29.1.2020, the subject vehicle, being driven by the son of the complainant namely Vivek Arya, met with an accident at Rau Bye Pass Rajinder Nagar, Indore (Madhya Pradesh). The matter was reported to the police and FIR (Annexure C-3) was registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Indore. OPs 1 & 2 were informed by the complainant about the accident and the surveyor was deputed who inspected the damaged vehicle at the spot, assessed the loss and found the subject vehicle totally damaged. Thereafter claim was lodged by the complainant with OPs 1 & 2, but, the same was repudiated by them vide letter dated 30.1.2020 (Annexure C-6) on the ground that, at the time of accident, the driver of the subject vehicle was under the influence of alcohol.  Copies of medical report and driving licence of aforesaid Vivek Arya are Annexure C-4 and C-5 respectively.  At the time of accident, son of the complainant was a teetotaler and there is no evidence or allegation that he had consumed alcohol at the relevant time.  In this manner, OPs 1 & 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant without any basis. The subject car was purchased by the complainant from OP-3, which was financed by ICICI Bank and as he had purchased the subject vehicle by raising loan, he is suffering a lot due to aforesaid act of OPs. The complainant also served a legal notice (Annexure C-7) upon the OPs, but, to no avail.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. OPs 1 & 2 in their written version have not denied that the subject vehicle was not insured by them, but, alleged that the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected by alleging that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its separate written version OP-3, alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP in the present consumer complaint and the same is not maintainable. However, it is admitted that the subject vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the answering OP.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and he got the same insured with OPs 1 & 2 vide subject policy (Annexure C-2) w.e.f. 15.1.2020  to 14.1.2021 for own damage IDV of ₹16,41,600/- and the subject vehicle, having been driven by Vivek Arya, son of the complainant, met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place, which resulted in causing damage to the subject vehicle, as is also evident from the copy of FIR dated 4.2.2020 (Annexure C-3) and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that “driver of the vehicle at the time of loss was under the influence of alcohol”, as is also evident from the copy of repudiation letter (Annexure C-6), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs 1 & 2/insurers are unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if OPs 1 & 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence led by the parties and the same is required to be scanned carefully in order to determine the real controversy between the parties.  
   3. Perusal of the subject policy (Annexure C-2) clearly indicates that the subject vehicle was insured with OPs 1 & 2 w.e.f. 15.1.2020 to 14.1.2021 for own damage cover with IDV of ₹16,41,600/- on payment of total premium of ₹1,35,974/-.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of FIR registered at P.S. Rajinder Nagar, Indore on 4.2.2020 with regard to the aforesaid accident.  Annexure C-4 is the copy of MLR of the driver of the subject vehicle namely Vivek Arya, which indicates that during medical examination he was found with multiple injuries.  It is also evident from the aforesaid MLR that during examination, aforesaid Vivek Arya was not found with smell of alcohol or under the influence of liquor by the medical officer. Annexure C-6 is copy of repudiation letter dated 30.5.2020 vide which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OPs 1 & 2/insurers on the ground that “driver of the vehicle at the time of loss was under the influence of alcohol”. Annexure C-7 is the copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs.
   4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, OPs 1 & 2 had originally filed their written version on 26.10.2022 before this Commission in which they had not come with the defence that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the driver was under the influence of alcohol, rather it has been alleged that the driver of the subject vehicle was not possessing driving licence at the time of accident and the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected. Though, during the pendency of the present consumer complaint OPs 1 & 2 have filed another reply and affidavit, but, the same were withdrawn in terms of statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of OPs 1 & 2, as recorded in the order dated 22.6.2023 of this Commission.
   5. Though alongwith the said second reply OPs 1 & 2 had also annexed the transcript of the audio video recording of the driver of the subject vehicle, but, since the same is not part of the reply filed by them earlier, it has no evidentiary value, especially when the same even stands rebutted by the MLR of the driver of the subject vehicle, Vivek Arya which is silent about any traces of alcohol with him at the time of his medical examination. Hence, it is safe to hold that OPs 1 & 2 have miserably failed to prove on record that the driver of the subject vehicle, Vivek Arya was under the influence of alcohol at the time of loss/accident.
   6. In view of the foregoing, it is safe to hold that OPs 1 & 2/insurers were unjustified in repudiating the claim of complainant and the said act amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay IDV of ₹16,41,600/- (less compulsory deductible/excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 30.5.2020 onwards. The wreck/salvage of the subject vehicle shall, however by retained and disposed of by OPs 1 & 2/insurer at their own.
2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. It is, however, made clear that the bank/financier shall have first charge over the aforesaid awarded amount, to the extent the same is due to be paid by the complainant towards the discharge of loan liability, if any.
7. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-3, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/02/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member