Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3399
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER, HON’BLE MR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
ICICI Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shri Sanwar Mai Sharma – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2017 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2017
For the Appellants: Mr. Apoorv Upmanyu
For ICICI Bank Ltd.: Mr. Hardik Vashisht, Ms. Mahima Bajaj
For Mr. Anil Sharma: NEMO
Failure to renew insurance policy leading to unclaimed damages constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Deficiency in service - The complainants, operators of a timber business, claimed against bank and insurance company for not renewing a fire insurance policy, resulting in unclaimed damages after a fire incident. Court observed that the bank had a duty to secure the correct insurance, failing which it constituted a deficiency in service. (Paras 4, 21)
(B) Insurance Policies - Consent and Authority - The bank issued another policy without the complainants' consent and failed to communicate effectively, violating consumer rights. Applicable legal principles clarify that commercial engagement does not exclude a complainant from being a consumer when an insurance agreement exists. (Paras 20, 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER
DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
1. The present two appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by ICICI Bank Limited and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “bank” and 'insurance company’, respectively) assailing the Order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaint No. 15 of 2010 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants was allowed.
F.A. No. 746 of 2017
2. In FA/746/2017, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is the appellant, although there was no appearance of behalf of the appellant and a copy of the proceedings dated 19.11.2024 sent to the appellant have come back with postal remarks ‘refused’ in respect of appellant no.1 and ‘addressee left without instructions’ in respect of appellant no.2 and 3. In view of the same, this first appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
In FA/308/2017, respondents nos. 5-7 i.e., ICICI Lombard General Insurance was placed ex-parte vide order dated 22.09.2022.
F.A. No. 308 of 2017
3. The facts, in brief, are that complainants, who are engaged in manufacturing and selling of timber at Banswara, took business loan of Rs.34 lakhs from the bank. The said loan was sanctioned to the complainants by the bank along with Rs.85,632/- towards premium for taking Home Safe Plus insurance policy covering the risk of fire and burglary etc. of stocks and goods. On 04.08.2009, a fire occurred in the premises of the complainants and the stocks and goods lying in the premises were destroyed. The complainants lodged a claim with the insurance company. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that there was no policy in force covering these risks on the said date. The complainants’ case is that a sum of Rs.85,632/- was sanctioned towards premium of the insurance policy against the loan amount by the Bank and the said amount of premium was included in the EMIs to be paid by the complainants. It is alleged that this amount was to be utilized for obtaining and renewing the insurance Home Safe Plus policy. The grievance of the complainants is that the bank failed to renew the Home Safe Plus policy, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the bank. It was also stated that the premium amount has been used to secure Home Safe Plus- Secure Mind Policy which had never been consented to.
4. Being aggrieved, the complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:-
a) Award damages to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000 /- (Rupees thirty five lakh only) (RS. 20,00,000/- towards furniture, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards stock of Sage wood and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards stock of plywood towards the loss of goods and stocks destroyed in the fire that occurred on Sth August, 2009; and
b) Award damages to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakh only) towards the loss of building /premises destroyed in the fire that occurred on 5th August, 2009; and
(c) Award damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) on account of mental agony and harassment, pain and suffering by the complainant due to the illegal acts and omissions of the opposite parties; and
d) Award pendent lite and future interest @24% per annum on the aforesaid claim amount; and
e) Award the cost of litigation in favor of the complainant and against the respondent bank; and
f) Pass any other of further order(s) as this Hon'ble commission deems just and necessary in the interest of justice.
5. After appreciation of the facts of the case, the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2017, allowed the complaint and directed the bank and the insurance company, jointly and severally, to make good the loss suffered by the complainant along with 10% interest from the date of presentation of this complaint and Rs.2
