Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/333/2023

ARUN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER SINGH SOUNDH

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/333/2023
Date of Institution	:	14.7.2023
Date of Decision	:	8/04/2024

 

Mr. Arun Singh, S/O Vikram Singh, 157-B, Ekta Nagar-B, Near Soni Public School, OPP DMW Patiala, Patiala, Punjab.

Complainant.

 

Versus

1. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025. Through its Managing Director.

2. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited having its branch office, 4th floor, The Statement, Plot no.149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, 160002 Through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Devinder Singh Soundh, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kartik, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Arun Singh complainant against the opposite party/ies (hereinafter referred to as OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant being registered owner of Honda car DL4CNC6326  (hereinafter to be referred as subject car)  got the same insured online from  OPs vide insurance policy Annexure C-1 (hereinafter to be referred as subject policy)  and paid premium amount of Rs.14,018/-  which was valid w.e.f.31.12.2022 to 30.12.2023. Prior to that the complainant got the subject car insured from Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Company Ltd.  vide policy Annexure C-2 which was valid w.e.f. 31.12.2021 to 30.12.2022. The complainant received the subject policy from the OPs on 27.12.2022 through online  and upon receiving the same, the complainant found that the policy was a total missell as all the information given by the complainant as well as noted in the previous policy were overlapped by the OP, by issuing the subject policy to the complainant. In the subject policy the OPs has wrongly mentioned the model of the car as Honda City I VTECH VX  whereas the actual model of the car was Honda City S. Not only this  even the names of the nominees have not been entered in the subject policy by the Ops and instead of reducing the IDV   of the subject as per IRDA guidelines, OPs had increased the same in order to get more premium .  Thereafter the complainant  approached the OPs for  making the necessary correction  in the subject policy  through mail as well as whatsapp messages  but nothing was done by the OPs for quite sometime,  rather the OPs have informed the complainant that the insurance policy outlines a 15 days time limit for any modification to be made in the policy and the copies of the mails and whatsapp messages are Annexure C-4 and C-5.  As nothing was done by the OPs towards the correction of the subject policy, the complainant requested the OPs to cancel the policy and refund the premium received by them from the complainant as the complainant was apprehend to bear  the expenses in case of accident of the subject car and he will not get any claim from the OPs and on account of the aforesaid act of the OPs, the complainant had suffered gross mental distress. Not only this the complainant stopped using the subject car and started using private taxi and buses  on finding that necessary correction has not been made in the subject policy by the OPs. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 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 written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action,  jurisdiction and concealment of fact. However, it is admitted that the subject car was got insured by the complainant from the OPs. It is further alleged that in fact the subject policy was issued to the complainant accurately in accordance with the information provided by the complainant through the proposal form. Even on finding the subject error as reported by the complainant, the OPs had assured the complainant that his genuine legitimate insurance claim will be honoured. Not only this, even the subject policy was corrected and was accordingly intimated to the complainant but despite of that the complainant sought refund of the premium amount. So far as the IDV  for the subject vehicle is concerned the same was subject to schedule of age-wise depreciation which applies only to vehicles upto five years of age and beyond that period IDV shall be as mutually agreed between the parties  in pursuance of general regulation of the Indian Motor Tariff 2002.    On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  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 registered owner of the subject  car which was got insured by him from the OPs as is also evident from Annexure C-1 which was valid w.e.f. 31.12.2022 to 30.12.2023 and certain clerical mistakes were  pointed out by the complainant to the OPs which were found in the subject policy qua model and nominee and the same were corrected on 7.3.2023 as is also evident from copy of endorsement schedule of private car package policy at page 39 of the complaint paper book, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs is deficiency in service  and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for or if the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2.  As per defence of the OPs the relevant entries in the subject policy were entered and recorded in pursuance to the proposal form submitted by the complainant and the error in the subject policy with respect of model of the car and nominee  could not have occurred due to the act of the OPs.  However, as the OPs have failed to prove on record the proposal form showing that the complainant had given wrong model name of the subject car  i.e. Honda City I VTECH VX   instead of Honda City S, it is unsafe to hold that the complainant had reported  wrong model of the subject car and had also not mentioned name of the nominee in the proposal form. However, when it has come on record that  on receiving information from the complainant in respect of error in the subject policy, the OPs had corrected the subject policy vide endorsement schedule of private car package policy at page 39 of the complaint paper book  on 7.3.2023 and the complainant has failed to prove on record that during the period when the policy was not corrected by the OPs, he purchased a fresh policy from any other insurance company by paying premium, it is safe to hold that the subject vehicle remained insured under the subject policy issued by the OPs and the OPs had corrected the error in the subject policy on 7.3.2023 after lapse of 2 months on receiving information about the subject error and as such the complainant is not entitled for refund of the premium amount as prayed for by him. However,  as it has come on record that the error in the subject policy could not be corrected by the OPs immediately despite of fact that the complainant had intimated the same immediately to them  on 27.12.2022  through whatsapp messages as well as mails as is evident from record and the OPs had taken more than two months for the correction of the error in the subject policy, which caused a mental trauma and stress to the complainant, hence, in our opinion the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental trauma and stress  for the delay in correction of the errors in the subject policy by the OPs.  Thus, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay composite amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 8/04/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member