Mumbai: Consumer Commission Holds ICICI Lombard Liable for Wrongfully Rejecting Claim, Orders Compensation. | Representational Image
Mumbai: The Central Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has found ICICI Lombard General Insurance guilty of wrongfully repudiating an insurance claim filed by Goregaon-based M/s Indian Vehicle Private Limited. The firm, which specializes in the movement of fleets with modern trucks and trailers, was awarded 75% of the claimed amount of ₹2,53,519 along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.
The commission directed ICICI Lombard to pay the compensation within 45 days of receiving the order. Failure to comply will result in an interest rate of 9% being applied to the amount.
M/s Indian Vehicle Private Limited had insured its vehicles with ICICI Lombard by paying a premium of ₹6,38,955 for the period July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014. The policy provided a sum assured of ₹22,67,800. The firm renewed its insurance policy with United India Insurance for the period starting July 1, 2014.
However, on June 30, 2014, at 11:00 PM, one of the insured vehicles met with an accident in Jaipur, just an hour before the ICICI Lombard policy expired. The complainant informed United India Insurance on July 1, 2014, and a spot survey was arranged. After the survey, the vehicle was dismantled for repairs, and the damages were assessed.
Upon realizing that the accident occurred during the ICICI Lombard policy period, the complainant informed ICICI Lombard. The company inspected the vehicle after repairs and later rejected the claim, citing two primary reasons firstly that the vehicle had been dismantled before their surveyor could assess the damages and secondly the policy had already expired by the time the claim was reported.
ICICI Lombard inn its defence had argued that the claim could not be processed because the dismantling of the vehicle prevented their surveyor from assessing the damages. Second that the complainant initially informed United India Insurance, leading to a delay in notifying ICICI Lombard and that the vehicle’s fitness certificate had expired on the accident date. Further the firm denied allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practices.
The Commission in its orders held that ICICI Lombard’s objections were hyper-technical and demonstrated a malafide intent to evade liability. It noted that the complainant had submitted a survey report from United India Insurance, prepared by an IRDA-approved surveyor, which ICICI Lombard did not dispute.
The commission rejected the firm’s defense of not being informed in time, stating that the delay in notification and the dismantling of the vehicle were not sufficient grounds to deny the claim. It also dismissed the argument about the expired fitness certificate, deeming it irrelevant under the circumstances.
The commission’s order further maintained that insurance firms are bound to honor legitimate claims and cannot resort to technicalities to avoid payouts, thereby holding ICICI Lombard accountable for deficiency in service.
