Delhi

New Delhi

CC/825/2009

Delhi International Airport Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

 

                                  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI 

                                                                           (DISTT.    NEWDELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

  I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 825/2009                                                             Dated:

In the matter of:

Delhi International Airport Limited,

Udan Bhawan,

IGI Airport Terminal IB,

New Delhi-110037

           ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited,

Birla Tower, 5^th floor, 25, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

          ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

       PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

 

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is an infrastructure company engaged in the job of redesigning, reconstructing, and refurbishing of the Delhi Airport. For the said purpose, the Complainant undertakes varied jobs including foreign travels by its experts and professionals in accordance with its plan requirement. The OP is the leading general insurance company in the private sector. The OP engages itself in the business of general insurance and undertakes inter alia foreign travel insurance for visiting expatriates. In order to protect the visiting Indian officials abroad, the Complainant Company regularly took with the OP a policy of insurance known by the title of Overseas Corporate Travel Insurance Policy. The current relevant policy was valid for the period from 25/08/2008 till 24/08/2009. The aforesaid policy taken by the complainant with the OP covers visiting executives of the complainant company, to meet unexpected medical expenses, loss of passport/baggage expenses, and certain personal liability, if arising during abroad visits. The cover for medical expenses was to the tune of $30,000.00 per official per visit, while for the personal liability the cover was to the tune of $1,00,000.00. For reasons associated with their jobs, one of the officials  of complainant company namely Mr. Tariq Hussain Butt was required to visit Athens sometime in the month of November 2008. He left for Bahrain and then for Athens in company with his colleague Mr. Lokesh Matta. He reached Athens on 11^th of November 2008. From Athens. On reaching Aegina, in order to facilitate local travel, Mr. Butt hired a car under the rent-a-car scheme. Unfortunately, the car which Mr. Butt was driving, met with an accident and the same was substantially damaged. The rented car company charged from him 2842 Euro towards the damage to the car.

The aforesaid official of the complainant lodged its claim with the OP for the total value of Euro 3063.00 plus bank charges, but the same was rejected by OP on false and frivolous ground, hence this complaint.

The OP was noticed and written statement was filed. In its written statement it is stated that loss was caused solely due to the negligence and carelessness of the complainant as the complainant himself has stated in the claim form that at the of the time of the alleged accident he was driving the car. The complainant was provided with the insurance cover under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is respectfully submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP insurance company as it is squarely covered under the clause 5(b) of the exclusion applicable to the personal liability and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the file.

Under personal liability clause it is mention that,

         “The company will compensate the insured person(s) in the    event the insured person become legally liable to a third party under statuatory liability provision In private law for an incident which result in death injury or damage to the health of such third party or damage to his or her properties, but not exceeding the sum insured specified in part I of the schedule to this policy and provided the incident occurs during the period of insurance and wildest on a trip abroad”.

The bare reading of the above clause clarify that, the OP insurance company shall be liable to reimburse the complainant company against the legal liability arose on it in case of any loss accured by third party against his health or property which is paid by it. In the present case, the official of the complainant hired a car and while he was driving the same, the car met with accident due to which the official of the complainant  company had to pay 2842 Euro to the owner of rent car company. Admitedly the OP company issued the policy and as per the clause “personal liability”, the OP company ought to have made the  payment to the rented car company which it fails to do. At the time of incidence the alleged policy in question was in existence and the incidence occured while the official of the complainant company was on a trip abroad. All the requirement/conditions mention in personal liability clause was duly completed by the complainant.  Hence in our view the case of the complainant squarely covered under the clause personal liability and  the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP under the exclusion clause applicable to personal liability was unjustified because the case of the complainant does not fall in any of the category mention in the exclusions applicable to personal liability. Hence in our view the repudiation is unjustified.

In the present complaint the complainant has alleged that he had paid 2842 Euro  and 150 Euro towards towage charges to the owner of the rent car company, in support of this contention he has place on record the receipt issued by it as well as the acknowledgment made by it regarding the aforesaid  payment. Being hold that the repudiation of the complaint was unjustified, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it to pay to the complainant.

1. Pay to the complainant Rs. 1,94,480/-(2842Euro+150 Euro) at exchange rate 1 euro = RS.65 mention in the para no.8 of the complaint.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation cost.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the above amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Announced in open Forum on   17/01/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                          (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER