DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………….
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara, President.
2.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
3.Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 13th day of July 2016.
C.C.No.36 of 2015.
Sujit Kumar Dash, age-28 years son of Subal Charan Dash.
Medicine Representative, Rsident of Tikrapara, Bolangir
Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd, Epari Plaza,2nd Floor,
Plot No.C/653, Janpath, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar.
2.Regional Manager,ICICI( Lombard GIC Ltd, ICICI Lombard
House,414,Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai-4000025. Maharastra.
3.Abinas, Bank Agent, C/O. Arundhati Motors,
Near Check Gate,N.H.201, Sambalpur Road, Bolangir.
4.Branch Manager,ICICI,Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.
At-Balaji Towers,Plot No.204/3644, 2nd Floor, G.M.College
Road, Sambalpur.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri P.K.Senapati & Associates.
Adv. for the O.Ps – Sri N.R.Babu & S.Jani.
Date of filing of the case- 06.05.2015
Date of order - 13.07.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In the matter of an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opp.Parties.
2. The complainant owned a motor cycle bearing Regd.No.OR/03C/5714. The vehicle purchased under Hire purchase agreement from HDFC Bank, under installment Rs 2201/- .He also submitted the vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd in paid premium of Rs 1,596/- on dated 10.12.2014 vide Policy No.-3005/25661230/11542/000. The vehicle met an accident at Manmunda on dt.14.01.2015 while going to Sonepur on NH 57 with a truck bearing Regd.No.09-K-3685.
3. The complainant being discharged from hospital said reported the matter to the O.P i.e ICICI Lombard and to his advise submitted the relevant document, insurance copy and photographs etc but till the date, the O.P is callous and ignoring the approach to settle the claim as lodged.
4. The complainant submitted the application with FIR copy, RC Book, Insurance Certificate and supplementary Estimate copy along with photographs. Praying replace with a new vehicle or cost with interest, compensation with litigation expenses and other relief.
5. In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared on 06.11.2015,thereby deferred days to file the version and lastly remained silent without any submission.
6. Heard the complainant at length and perused the record and material on hand.
7. On perusal we prefer to adjudicate u/s.13(2) of the C.P. Act as provided. We further observed, the vehicle is insured and the F.I.R. copy speaks accident has been happened, but the complainant has prayed for total loss in absence of any surveyor and loss assessor report.
8. The complainant stated, the occurrence has been communicated to the Insurer with relevant document, but there is no record to admit that such reporting has made with specific date. The O.P also did not file any version in its countenance.
9. On the question of total loss, we can say “Insured cannot claim anything more than actual accidental damage to vehicle”- Veena Sethi Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd”:- 2012(2) CPR 214. Further we can say in considerate that:- “In the absence of prove and challenge to the surveyors report plea of total loss can’t be accepted”- 2014(4) CPR 517 (NC).:- Smt. Meena Devi Jain Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
10. In view of the above made observation total loss acceptance is inconceivable as our observation made into. On the contrary, the O.P deliberately delayed, deferred and did not prefer respond than to omit. And our such observation as hold in the case- Mahesh Chand Ghiya Vs New India Assurance Co, 2011 CPR 122 (NC)- That “long delay on the part of Insurance Company in appointing surveyor amounts to mental torture and grave deficiency in service”. In such circumstances, the O.P also violated I.R.D.A. Regulations- 2002, which is mandatory in nature.
11. Regulation-9:- Claim procedure in respect of a general policy.
- An insured or the claimant shall give notice to the Insurer of any loss arising under contract of insurance at the earliest or within such extended time as may be allowed by the insurer ……………..where a surveyor has to be appointed for assessing a loss/claim, it shall be done within 72 hours of the receipt of intimation from the insured.
- Where the insured is unable to furnish………………In no case shall the surveyor take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report.
- If an Insurer, on the receipt of survey report, finds that it is incomplete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor…………….insurer within 15 days of the receipt of the original survey report.
- ………………….
- On receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report as the case may be, an insurer within period of 30 days offer a settlement of the claim to the insurer.
12. In view of such mandatory stipulation, the O.Ps failed to provide that surveyor has deputed or the claim has been repudiated. So the faults heavily lies with the O.Ps and non attending to give counter at the forum which has jeopardize his stand & in its own defence. We observe loss on accident has been occurred but unable to settle the claim in absence of any surveyor’s report. The fault has been committed both at Insurer and his agent’s end .Thus both are liable to pay.
13. We further also observed, the policy is in force. The validity runs from 10.12.2014 to 09.12.2015.The occurrence occurred on 14.01.2015 and amply reported with the police, where as non deputation of survey in assessment of loss is a gross violation of regulation and deficiency of service. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to depute the surveyor in instant and collect the report, thereby settle the claim in giving the cheque/remittance to the petitioner within forty days of this order and the petitioner to co-operate to the Insurer as required with giving document or account No etc, petitioner is to accept the loss as evaluated by the competent surveyor, failing which Rs 10/- per day penalty will accrue on the evaluated amount from the date of order till realization. In alternative it give rise to that in non-compliance of the above order give rise to the total loss of Rs 52,000/- be accepted & make it non-standard @ 25% be deducted i.e Rs 52,000 – 13,000 = Rs 39,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within above time frame without fail.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
[S.Rath] [G.K.Rath] (P.Samantara)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.
