District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 315/2021.
Date of Institution:06.07.2021.
Date of Order:07.07.2023.
Gaffar Khan S/o Jumma Khan R/o village Bijopur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, registered office: ICICI Lombard House 414, P.Balu Marg, Off. Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai – 400 025 through its Director/Principal Officer.
Service also effected at:
M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at: 1st floor, SCO-17, Sector-16, Faridabad- 121002 through its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Vikas Bhadana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Shabir Hussain, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle (Hero-HF Deluxe Motorcycle) bearing its registration No. HR-51-BY-4974 having its engine No. HA11EPK9H04982, model 2019. The above said vehicle got insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy No. 3005/45941809/20917/000 valid from 12.09.2019 to 11.09.2024 for the insured sum of Rs.46,360/-. On 14.09.2019, the complainant alongwith his employer Shri Sunil Yadav S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand R/o Mohala Khaliyawas, Ward No.8, Dharuhera, District Rewari, went to house No. 455, Sector-6, Dharuhera, District Rewari on said motorcycle for welding works and he parked the said vehicle in front of said house with proper lock and when after completion of said work, the complainant alongwith said Sunil Yadav came at the spot where parked the said vehicle but the said vehicle was missing from there and then said Shri Sunil Yadav and complainant tried to search the said vehicle, but the said could not be found and hence on 14.09.2019, on the complaint of said Sunil Yadav, case bearing FIR NO. 0199 dated 14.09.2019 u/s 379 IPC was registered against the unknown person at P.S.Sector-6, Dharuhera. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party in this regard and lodged his claim vide No. MOY09180663 and submitted the requisite documents with the opposite party. The police also filed untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before the Illaka Magistrate stating therein that the vehicle of the complainant was untraceable. The complainant also submitted the indemnity bond etc. with the opposite party and assured that the claimed amount should be disbursed shortly but of no use. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay the above said vehicle insured amount of Rs.46.360/- (sum insured/IDV) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date its loss/theft till its realization to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the opposite party issued a two-wheeler insurance policy No. 3005/45941809/20917/000 for the vehicle bearing its chassis No. MBLHAW067K9H02700 of the complainant. The said policy was valid for the period from 12.09.2019 to 11.09.2024 and the liability of opposite parties for own damage covered for the period of one year and strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy. During the tenure of the said policy on dated 14.09.2019 the relative of the complainant had taken the vehicle for some business purposes at house NO. 455, sector-6, Dharuhera, Rewari. The said driver after furnishing his work come to know that the said vehicle was stolen by someone. The insured lodged a motor theft claim by filing a claim form and submitted some relevant documents and both the ignition keys and his handwritten statement to the opposite party. During investigation, the answerable insured sought some documents from the insured therefore, the answerable opposite party sent a letter dated 17.12.2019 to the complainant. However, the complainant had not given the requisite documents to the answerable opposite party. On pursuing the documents and the hand written statement of the complainant, it reveals that the said vehicle had no any permanent or temporary registration at the time of theft which amounts to a breach of sections 39 & 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as a fundamental breach of terms & conditions of the policy. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.01.2020. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3 Instead of filing evidence on behalf of the opposite party, Shri Vikas Bhadana, counsel for opposite party has made a statement that we are already to pay 75% amount on non standard basis.
On the other hand, Shri Shabir Hussain, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I am ready to accept 75% amount on non standard basis.
4. On the basis of the statement of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed on non standard basis.
5. For the adjudication of the present complaint and the issue therein, we place reliance on the Supreme Court Authority Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in Civil Appeal NO. 2703/2010 decided on 25.3.2010.
In Amalendu Sahoo’s case, there was violations of the Terms & conditions of the policy and the insurance benefits were denied by the insurance company. In the above mentioned case, further reliance was placed by the Supreme Court on:
a). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, and
b). National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal
Wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the claim could have been settled on non standard basis in the event of any breach of condition upto 25%. Once the Insurance Company has insured the vehicle for the loss caused to the insured, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. When there is breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis.
6. Following the aforesaid guidelines, this Commission is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto. The complaint is allowed for claim to be settled on non standard basis.
IDV value of vehicle : Rs.46,360.00
Less Excess Clause : Rs. 1,000.00
: Rs. 45,360.00
Deduction 25% on non standard basis on total : - Rs. 11,340.00
Total : Rs. 34,020.00
7. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 34,020/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 07.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
