DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 64 OF 2016

Rakesh Kumar Dubey ( 42 Year),

S/O: Deo Raj Dubey,

R/O: Samada, Belpahar, PO/PS: Belpahar,

Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………………………………..……. Complainant.

                                           Versus 

1. Branch Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

AT/PO: Kalimandir Road,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

ICICI Lombard House,414, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai-220 025.

3. Gajraj Automobiles (P) Ltd.,

At/PO/PS: Thelkoli,

Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha…………….................................... Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                         Sri T.K.Singh ,Adv. & Associates.

For the OPP. PartyNo.1 & 2             Sri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.3                   Self ( Ex-Parte).

Date of Order: 10.05.2017

Present

                                                                                 1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                                                 2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

                                                                                 3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).

Shri S.K. Ojha, Member : -  The complaint’s case in brief is that, the complainant has insured his vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD-15A-4931 with the O.Ps.  The insurance was valid from dtd. 30.08.2014 to 29.08.2015.  The said vehicle met with an accident on dtd. 02.05.2015 while the vehicle was on transit and caused complete loss without injury or loss to any life.  The complainant immediately informed to the O.Ps. As per the instruction of  O.Ps. the complainant shifted the vehicle to the concerned workshop / garage for repairing.  The O.P.No.3 visited the spot and made initial estimate of Rs.16,58,272/- only and the same

was provided to O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 told that the Surveyor has estimated for Rs.4,00,000/- only approximately and the approval will  be made by higher authority and it will be informed to the complainant, but till date the complainant has not received any information.  Later on the complainant came to know that the O.Ps. have issued two letters where they need of invoice and decision pending from the complainant side.  The complainant requested to reopen the claim and settle his claim but the O.Ps. neither received the documents nor settled the claim, hence this case.   

            The O.P.No.1 & 2 appeared after being noticed, filed their written version where the  O.P.No.3 kept silent and set ex-parte.  The O.P.No.1 & 2 submitted that the claim was closed due to non-submission of the relevant documents by the complainant in spite of several reminders. The Surveyor who was appointed by the O.Ps. have not submitted his report of actual loss to the O.Ps. till date. Stating the pre maturity of the case the O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the case. 

            Heard the matter from both the sides in length. On perusal of case record along with materials available it is found that, the O.Ps. were interested to settle the claim for which issued several letters to the complainant mentioning the same two points for compliance by the complainant those are (1) Invoice  and (2) decision pending from customer end,  but it is not cleared that whether those letters have been properly served to the complainant or not.

            Secondly, for instance if the complainant would have received those letters and for compliance if he would have submitted the (1) invoice but while complying on the 2^nd point i.e. decision pending from customer end, what decision the complainant would have taken ? Whether the O.Ps. have made any proposal for settlement of insurance claim to the complainant ?  It is also not mentioned by any of the parties.

            Thirdly, the O.Ps. submitted in their version that they had appointed a Surveyor but till the date of filing of written version the said Surveyor has not submitted the report of actual loss before the O.Ps., but very interestingly the Surveyor Report filed by the O.Ps was made by one Er. Manoj Hota on dtd. 01.08.2015, where the O.Ps. have filed their written version on dtd. 20.12.2016. It is the clear picture of either having communication gap between the O.Ps. and their so appointed Surveyor or there may be chances to put the complainant so also this Hon’ble Forum in dark.

            Fourthly, if we perused the said Surveyor’s Report minutely it is mentioned in the head of “Cause and Nature of Accident” that “As reported and from insured, the undersigned came to the conclusion that near the spot of accident, while taking a sharp turning curve an incoming vehicle dashed the said vehicle on it’s RH front side with speed causing extensive damages to the said vehicle”. Here the Surveyor investigated the incident and found that the vehicle after being dashed, it has caused “extensive damages” which means as per English dictionary is ‘covering a large area; having a great range’.  In general practice it means the vehicle has damaged completely.

             The complainant as per the instruction of O.Ps. have shifted the said vehicle in an authorized service center where the said service center has estimated Rs.16,58,272/- only towards repairing cost but the Surveyor  has assessed Rs.5,40,000/- only in repair basis and Rs.4,03,500/- on cash loss basis while the said Surveyor has opined the vehicle as damaged extensively i.e. in very large extent. 

            However the Surveyor’s report is a vital piece of document which cannot be easily brushed out but it does not mean to be final one, if any variation or misconduct is found out. In this case the O.Ps. and / or the Surveyor put the complainant in dark by not informing after preparation of Surveyor Report or  made the Surveyor Report in back date to escape their liabilities so also mentioning extensive damage and assessed the loss very casually.

            As per the above mentioned facts and circumstances the O.Ps. are found to be gross deficient in their service provided towards the complainant and this Hon’ble Forum allow the complaint petition with directions to the O.Ps. as follows;-

         ORDER

1. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are hereby jointly and severally directed to settle the insurance claim of complainant on total loss basis by paying all the expenditures towards repairing of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD 15 A 4931 or pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- ( Rupees ten lakhs) only to the complainant towards total repairing costs including mental agony and harassment.

2. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are hereby jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant towards litigation costs.

3. All the above mentioned orders are to be carried out within 45 (forty five) days from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly the case is dispose of.

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 10^th day of May’ 2017, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

                                       I Agree.         

                               S.L.Behera, President              A. Nanda, Member                    S.K.Ojha, Member                                                                                                                   

                                 Dictated and corrected by me.

                                    S.K.Ojha, Member