BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; DISTRICT EAST;

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI. 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. ____ OF 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

___________________                                 : COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE

___________________                       : OPPOSITE PARTIES

INDEX

DELHI                                                                    COMPLAINANT

THROUGH

DATED

______________________________

 ADVOCATE

____________________________,

New Delhi-110015

Mob.No._________________

Email: ___________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; DISTRICT EAST;

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI. 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. ____ OF 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

_________________________                     : COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE

____________________.                              : OPPOSITE PARTIES

MEMO OF PARTIES

_____________________________

ADD:___________________,

East Delhi-110095.                                        : COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. _________________________.

Add:______________________.

2. ______________________

Add:_____________                           : OPPOSITE PARTIES

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DELHI                                                                    COMPLAINANT

THROUGH

DATED

___________________________

ADVOCATE

_________________________,

New Delhi-110015

Mob.No.______________

Email: ___________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; DISTRICT EAST;

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI. 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. ____ OF 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

__________________________

,

East Delhi-110095.                                        : COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. ________________________.

2______________________________

                                                            : OPPOSITE PARTIES

CONSUMER COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.              That the present consumer complaint is being preferred by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter also referred to as “the OPs/Respondents”) under the provisions of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant would like to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Commission the unfair and unlawful trade practices being carried out by the Respondents and the deficiency in service as well as denial of the claim against which the Complainant seeks relief.

2.              That the Complainant is a law abiding citizen of India and constrained to approach this Hon’ble Commission against the unlawful and illegal acts of the Respondents. The Opposite Party no.1 is an Insurance Company and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company/ Respondent no.1"). The Opposite Party No.2 is Private Limited Company / Authorized Dealer of Toyota, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealership/Respondent no.2").

3.              That the Complainant was purchased / booked the vehicle Toyota Fortuner, Super White Color on __________ from the Respondent no.2 Showroom against the Tax Invoice bearing No.__________ and paid the invoice amount of said vehicle for a sum of Rs.41,22,000/- and while handing over the said vehicle, the Respondent no.2 also given the letter dated ___________ in which providing the details of registration of temporary number of the subject vehicle i.e. __________under the provisions of Section 43 of M.V. Act which valid from __________ and Hire-Purchase/Lease Agreement / Hypothecation of vehicle in favour of__________ Bank (hereinafter called as “subject vehicle”).

4.              That the insurance of the subject vehicle was also done by the Respondent no.1 _________________ through Respondent no.2 and issued the policy bearing No. ___________ which valid from _________________ and the Complainant paid the total premium of Rs.__________/- (hereinafter called as “said policy”).

5.              During this period, unfortunately on _________, the subject vehicle of the Complainant was stolen from ________, Sector-________, Delhi. The incident was immediately reported to the police by the Complainant and an e-FIR bearing No._____ on ________ was lodged at the e-Police Station _________ Marg, District Crime Branch, Delhi, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the Complainant informed the Respondent no.1 and lodged his claim in the said policy. The Respondent no.1 insurance company acknowledged the claim and issued a claim intimation receipt on __________, indicating that a surveyor would be appointed in this respect.

6.              That on _________, the police submitted an "Untraced" final report before the Ld. Court of ____________, Ld.ACMM-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, indicating that the subject vehicle could not be traced.

7.              That on __________, the Complainant received a letter from the Respondent no.1 insurance company repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the following grounds; -

“On a careful perusal of the claim documents. It was observed that the vehicle was not registered with the RTA at the material time of theft, which amounts to fundamental breach of the policy and also an offense under Section 39 read with Section 192 of the M.V. Act, 1988.

We therefore, express our inability to consider your claim.

“The Company reserves to repudiate the claim on any other grounds that may come to light at any time in future”.

8.              It is submitted that it appears from the reason of the repudiation that the claim was rejected only on account of subject vehicle was not registered with the RTA at the material time of theft. However, the Respondent no.1 failed to take note of the fact that the temporary registration number ___________, issued under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was valid from ___________, to September 1, 2023. This provision allows for the temporary registration of a vehicle, which is legally valid for a specific period as prescribed by the State Government under this period the subject vehicle was stolen. The temporary registration was lawfully granted and was active at the time of the theft.  It is pertinent to mention the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Param Pal Singh (2007), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that temporary registration is valid and effective under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The rejection of the claim on the grounds of the vehicle not having a permanent registration is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of justice and fairness.

9.              That the insurance Policy No. __________ was valid from ___________, and the premium was fully paid by the Complainant. The doctrine of uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith) mandates that both parties in an insurance contract must act in good faith. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644, the Supreme Court emphasized that the insurer cannot avoid liability unless the insured party has been guilty of willful misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. In my case, there was no such misrepresentation, and the vehicle was insured with full disclosure, so rejection of claim is illegal, unfair and unlawful trade practices

10.           In the present case, the Respondent no.2 dealership from which the subject vehicle was purchased by the Complainant, had an obligation to complete the process of permanent registration. Their failure to do so should not prejudice insurance claim of the Complainant. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kiran Malhotra (2018), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that the insurer could not deny a claim solely on the ground of delay in permanent registration if the vehicle was covered by a temporary registration and a valid insurance policy at the time of the incident. Further the failure of Respondent no.2 to fulfill this obligation should not prejudice the insured party, i.e., Complainant. The Supreme Court of India, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, held that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim based on technical grounds if the insured has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the policy terms.

11.           The rejection of claim of the Complainant on such an irrelevant basis demonstrates a lack of due diligence and adherence to fair claims processing practices by OP1. By repudiating claim of the complainant based on an unjustifiable reason, the OP1 is effectively depriving the complainant of the benefits and coverage he diligently paid premiums. That the actions of the OP1 in this matter are not only in violation of the policy terms but also raise questions about ethical business practices and consumer rights.

12.           The serious question which arises for consideration is passing the repudiation of the claim by the officials of OP1 Insurance Company without considering the request and documents submitted by the insured. The complainant through the present complaint request this Hon’ble Commission to kindly pass compensation against the Opposite parties / Respondents on account of not applying or giving any reasons except reproducing the grounds of not allowing the claim.

13.           That such being illegal and unlawful conducts of the Opposite Parties, and further, the Opposite Parties are committing unfair trade practice and providing deficient services to their customers including the Complainant.

14.           That the axiomatic facts that emerged from the above clearly show that the Opposite Party no.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant with dishonest and mala fide intentions. The Opposite Parties have been grossly deficient in their services and has duped the complainant in lure of their services, unfair trade practice and policies. The opposite Parties have caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gains to themselves at the expense of the complainant.

15.           That the present complaint is being filed by the complainant owing to the illegal and unlawful conduct of the Opposite Parties and the fact that the Opposite Parties are committing unfair trade practices and providing deficient services to their consumers.

16.           That on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices adopted on behalf of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant herein was subject to tremendous mental agony and anguish along with immense financial loss.

17.           That the Cause of Action for filing the present Complaint arose on ______ when the insurance policy issued by the OP1 of the subject vehicle. It is further arose on _________ when the hypothecation and registration of the subject vehicle was done by the OP2. It is further arose on _________ when the subject vehicle of the complainant was stolen and the complainant immediately lodged an FIR No.__________ and further arose on _________ when the complainant lodged an claim with the OP1 for the subject vehicle. The cause of action further arose on ______ police officials submitted the “Untraced” final report before the Ld. ACMM, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The cause of action further arose on _________ when the OP1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with RTA at the material time of theft which is unjust and unfair practice of the OP1. The cause of action is still continuing in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties. Hence the present complaint is within limitation.

18.           That the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties and subsists till date, and same is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission as the Complainant reside, work and gain at_____________which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. Hence, this Hon’ble Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

19.           That the prescribed applicable court fees have been filed along with the instant Complaint.

PRAYER :-

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint be kindly allowed, the Opposite Parties be kindly directed to:-

a)    The OP1 / Respondent no.1 pay the total insured value of the subject vehicle i.e. Rs.41,22,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. on account of rejection of claim by OP1 (interest to be calculated starting from rejection of claim of the complainant, till the date of complete refund of the claim amount); and

b)    Hold the OP2/ Respondent no.2 accountable for their failure to ensure the completion of the permanent registration process in timely manner.

c)    Award an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the OPs / Respondents on account of mental agony, damages, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant due to the wrongful rejection of the legitimate claim;

d)    Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as the litigation cost to the complainant; and

e)    Issue directions to the concerned authorities to prevent such arbitrary and illegal actions by insurers and dealerships in the future.

f)     Pay any such other amount as this commission is pleased to find just and proper to the complainant.

DELHI                                                                    COMPLAINANT

THROUGH

DATED

_______________________

_______________ADVOCATE

___________________________,

New Delhi-110015

Mob.No____________________

Email: ____________________

VERIFICATION :-

          The above named complainants do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the particulars stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that nothing has been concealed therein. I further certify that Annexures A to G affixed to the complaint are true copies of the original documents.

          Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of July, 2024.

COMPLAINANT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; DISTRICT EAST;

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI. 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. ____ OF 2024.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

___________________                       : COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE

___________________   : OPPOSITE PARTIES

AFFIDAVIT

I, ______________, aged about ___ years, S/o _________________l, _____________, Delhi-110095, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1.       That I am the Complainant in this case and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and hence am competent to swear this Affidavit.

2.       That the contents of the accompanying Consumer Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, have been drafted under my instructions and the contents thereof, except the legal averments contained therein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The legal averments contained therein are true and correct on the basis of the legal advice received by me and believed by me to be true and correct. The contents of the accompanying Complaint are not being repeated over here for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity.

                                                                           DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this the ___ day of July, 2024, that the contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and that no part of this Affidavit is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

                                                                                                    DEPONENT