Delhi

New Delhi

CC/664/2009

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.664/2009                               

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Pawan Kumar

S/o Shri Hukam Chand

R/o 102 Mukherjee Nagar west

Delhi-110009                                                                            ....Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Ltd.

23/25 Third Floor Bara Khamba Road

Connaught Place, Delhi.                                                     ....Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

                                                                                                                        Dated Institution:- 28.04.2009                                                                                                                                                                               Date of Order   : -   28.10.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in brief CP Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant has got the three wheeler Vikram Scooter No. DL-1LH 9395. It was insured for value of Rs.1,00,000/- (IDV) with the OP vide policy bearing no. 3003/52386813/00/000 customer no.57772957, valid from 18.08.2007 to 17.08.2008. 
2. It is stated that on 10.01.2008 the complainant had sent the scooter through his driver Dharmender for repair with Raj Kumar Mistri as 122/14 Main Road, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. It is stated that on 10.01.2008 the engine of the vehicle was open for repair and as the repair was not complete and the same was kept in the shop by Mistri  in the shop but when he came to his shop on 11.01.2008 he found the lock of the shop was broken and the chamber Engine was stolen. This was informed by the Mistry to the driver of the complainant and report was lodge with SHO P.S. Burari by complainant and the Mistry.
3. It is stated that on 14.01.2008 an intimation of theft of the engine of the said vehicle was given to OP and a complaint No.684820 given to the complainant along with claim form.  The company appointed Sh. Deepak Batra, surveyor and loss accessor to investigate and access the loss who visited within two days and took the photographs and did necessary proceedings as required. The investigator collected all documents from complainant and then submitted the same before Opposite Party. In the mean while and FIR was registered vide FIR No.104/2008 under Section 380 IPC dated 23.02.2008 P.S. Burari.
4.  It is stated that on 19.02.2008, Opposite Party repudiated the claim of complainant stating that there is a violation of condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions. That the alleged theft took place on 10.01.2008 whereas the intimation of theft was given to the respondent on 14.01.2008 i.e. after about 3 days and the FIR was got registered with the policy on 23.02.2008 i.e. after about 44 days.
5. It is stated that the complainant has sent letter dated 18.03.2022 and 04.06.2022 to pass the genuine claim but no avail.
6. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP who entered appearance and filed written statement stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is alleged that there is no relationship of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, between the complainant and respondent therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is alleged by the OP that there is a violation of condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions. That the alleged theft took place on 10.01.2008 whereas the intimation of theft was given to the respondent on 14.01.2008 i.e. after about 3 days and the FIR was got registered with the policy on 23.02.2008 i.e. after about 44 days. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
9. Complainant filed evidence reiterating the facts made in the complaint.  Complainant filed the copy of the insurance policy. Complainant further stated that he lodged a complaint with the police on which FIR was registered. Complainant also filed the correspondence with the OP.
10. On the other hand, OP also filed a copy of the policy, report of the surveyor and letter dated 19.02.2008 stating that claim was not maintainable.
11. We have heard the AR of the complainant, vide order dated 23.08.2022 a court notice was issued to Op, despite service of the court notice none had appeared on behalf of OP for final argument6s,  perused the record.
12. It is to be noted that that complainant had taken the policy of the vehicle in question from OP and the theft of the vehicle took place during the continuance of the said policy. The claim was repudiated on the ground of delay in informing the OP. Ld. counsel for complainant contended that the claim was repudiated arbitrarily.
13. In view of the unrebutted testimony of complainant, we are of the view the repudiation of the claim of the complaint was unjustified. The complainant had filed his evidence by affidavit and filed and relied upon Registration certificate of the vehicle in question, issuance Policy.
14. It is to be noted that complainant/Insured lodged the FIR immediately after theft of the vehicle occurred. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 653/2020 SLP(C) 24370/15 titled Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. and another

That in case of theft insurance company or a Surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police who on filing of FIR of insured will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovery the vehicle per contra the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most could ascertain the factum of theft.  In the event the police recovers the vehicle and returns it to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police is not in a position to trace the vehicle and final report is lodged by police that vehicle is not traced the insured would be entitled to lodge a claim for compensation. The survey of insurance company is also required to enquire whether the claim of theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor finds  that claim of theft is genuine then coupled with registration of  FIR it would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen.

15. In the present case the facts remain unrebutted that heft occurred on 13.03.2018 and FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 13.03.2018. A copy of final report has been filed whenever it is stated that vehicle was not traced.
16.  In the above facts and circumstances, we accordingly hold that OP was guilty of deficiency in service as its arbitrarily repudiated the claim. In the said facts and circumstances we hold OP liable to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle Rs.34,720/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) with interest @ 9% per annum since lodging of claim and as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for mental agony Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost of litigation from the date of filing of complaint within 4 weeks of the receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

The Copy of order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost.

The order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room with a copy of the order.

Announced in open Forum on 28/10/2022 .

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                             (ADARSH NAIN)

 

              MEMBER                                                                          MEMBER