Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/41/2019

Kabita Kumari D/O- Late Deep Narayana Rai. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manger ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

T.K. Singh

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

`DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA

                                                           ****************

                                         CONSUMER CASE NO.41/2019

 Kabita Kumari , Age 22years

D/o-Late Deep Narayan Rai,

R/o- Gwalapada,                          

Po-Lamtibahal, Ps- Brajarajnagar,

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

 

           Versus

1.  Branch Manager ,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

At- Mishra Complex, 1^st Floor,

Po- Kalimandir Road, Jharsuguda

Dist.-Jharsuguda, Odisha-768201.

 

2. Managing Director,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company ltd.

ICICI Lombard House,

414, P. Balu Marg (Opposite Veer Savarkar Marg),

Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

 

3. Bina Motors,

Authorised Show Room and Service Center

Hero Moto Corp

At-Gandhi Chowk, Po-Gandghora

PS- Brajrajnagar, Dist-Jharsuguda, Odisha 768216,

 

4. Vijay Laxmi Auto mobiles

AT/PO- Ekatali, Near Boxi Chowk,

PS-/Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha- 768203……….………………………Opp. Parties

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

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

For the Opp.  Party No- 1&2               Sri. B.N. Dutta  

For the Opp. Party No-3                      Sri S.N. Pasayat   

For the Opp.  Party No-4                     Ex- parte

 

Present:-     1. Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President.

                     2. Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member.

 

Date of hearing- 08.02.2023                                                     Date of order- 05.04.2023

 

Presented by, Smt. Jigeesha Mishra,President : -

1.The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of one vehicle Hero splendor I smart  Vide Regd No OD23D2873.The Vehicle was purchased by the uncle of the complainant Surendar Rai from Bina Motors, Gandhi Chowk, Brajrajnagar Under hypothecation with hero fin. Corp ltd. The Vehicle was used by her uncle under her instruction and authorisation. The vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General insurance Company as first Party Insurance vide cover note No.104326087 policy No,3005/36830675/22562 dtd 29/05/2017 valid from 29/05/2017 to 28/05/2018. The complainant went to Belpahar with his uncle Surendar Rai to meet his relatives and while they were returning to brajrajnagar on dtd 23/09/2017 at about 8.00 PM at Gandhi chowk on N.H 49, her uncle stopped and parked the said vehicle in the extreme left side of the road and in the men time said vehicle was dashed by unknown vehicle from the back side causing complete loss to the vehicle and the matter was informed to Gandhi chowk police out post, Brajrajnagar vide SDE no 11 dtd 24/09/2017. The complainant approached O.P.No-3 for repairing  and insurance claim of  the vehicle .But the O.P.No-3 did not co- operate with the complainant .The surveyor of ICICI Lombard General Insurance  company Ltd took the photograph of the vehicle and instructed to  transfer the said vehicle to concerned workshop/ Garage for repairing . When the vehicle was taken to O.P.No-3 for estimation and repairing O.P.No-3 did not Cooperate with the  petitioner .Hence the complainant was compelled to shift the said vehicle to  O.P.No.4.  O.P.No.4 verified the vehicle and provided estimated cost for repairing of the vehicle amounting to RS 40,100/-. The Surveyor declared the claim will be settle on total loss basis .The complainant visited the office of O.P.No-1 several time but the O.P.No.1 is not interested to settle the claim. Non- settlement of claim by the O.P.s amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this case before this commission.

2.The case of the O.P.s is that the opposite party No-1, 2 and 3 filed their version O.P.No-3 admitted that the vehicle was purchased from the O.P.No-3 Bina motors.O.P.No-3 denied the allegation of the complainant that the O.P.No-3 insisted the complainant to insured the vehicle under ICICI Lombard company ltd. Hence there is no  deficiency on the part of O.P.No-3 O.P.No-1 and 2 ICICI Lombard  General Insurance co. Ltd. admitted that  the policy bearing no 3005/131546215/00/000 was issued  by the opposite party in favaur of Kabita Kumari for the  vehicle bearing registration No OD-23D 2873. Further O.P.NO-1 and 2 submitted that the case is not maintainable as it is not a consumer dispute .The O.P. issued reminder latter two time on 05/01/2017 and 11/11/2017 to submit bill and estimate of vehicle and other connected document. But the complainant never bother to submit the same, hence the claim could not processed and the claim was finally closed. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.No-1and 2.

3.Perused the records and it reveals that the complainant  purchased one Hero splendor smart from Bina Motor Vide invoice No BMHR00097 dare 16/05/2016. It is the admitted fact of the case  is that the vehicle met with an  accident within validity period. The complainant paid Rs 1545/- as premium of the policy No 3006/36830675/22562/000 to the insurance company ICICI Lombard. Accordingly the complainant is a consumer of the O.P.  The Insurance Company admitted that the insurance company deputed a surveyor to assed the actual loss. But no survey report was filed by the opposite party insurance company. On dated 05/11/2017 and 1/11/2017 the O.P. ICICI Lombard issued latter to the complainant to report the vehicle to garage. The O.P.No-3 service center did not co-operate with the complainant which proves from the repairing mode by another service center i.e.  Vijaya Laxmi Automobile. The Vijay Laxmi Automobile Provided an estimate of repairing for RS 40,100/-. The complainant on dated 24/09/2017 made a F.I.R to Gandhi Chowk Police out post, Brajrajnagar Vide SDE No-11 dated 24/09/2017 about the accident. All the documentary evidence are in favour of the complainant. The opposite party No-1 and 2 i.e. ICICI Lombard did not settle the claim of the complainant and the O.P.s are taking plea to avoid their liability. As  an authorized service center it is  the duty of O.P.No-3 to provide service to the complainant .But O.P.No-3 did not  provide service to the complainant which amount to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no-3 .Both  insurance company and service center are equally liable  for deficiency in service .Accordingly the  following  order is made.

                                                  ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against O.P.No-1, O.P.No-2, and O.P.No-3.  O.P.No-1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable and direct to pay RS 40,100/-( Rupees forty thousand one hundred) only to the complainant within 30 days of this order. Further O.P.No-1,2and 3 are directed to pay Rs-20,000/- compensation for harassment and mental agony along with Rs-5000/-( Rupees five thousand) only litigation expenses to the complainant .failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A till realization.

 Order pronounced in the open court on 5^th April 2023 Supply free copy to the parties.

 

   I Agree          

            .      A. Agrawal, Member                          J. Mishra, President    

            

                                 Dictated and corrected by me

                                         J. Mishra, President