Orissa

Cuttak

CC/97/2019

Suresh Chandra Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO,ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B DasMohapatra & associates

29 Jun 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.97/2019

 

           Suresh Chandra Das,

           S/o: Late Baishnab Charan Das,

           At:MadhusudanNagar,P.O:Tulsipur,

           Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

414,BaluMarg,NearSidhi Vinayak Temple,

Pravadevi,Mumbai-400025 represented through its CEO.

 

2.        The Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Sri Kailash Plaza,1^stFloor,Shop No.17,18,19,20,

Plot No.597,597/1017,

Link Road,Cuttack753012.                                                                ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   22.08.2019

Date of Order:  29.06.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. B.Dasmohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  :                              Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

           

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that he had purchased one Hyundai i20 Sportz model 1.4 DSL car on 27.11.2010 from Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for a cost of Rs.6,60,923/- bearing Regd. No.OR-01-R-7200.  The said vehicle was insured with O.P no.1 through O.P no.2 and was being renewed annually.  The premium for the period 16.12.2016 till 15.12.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,253/- was paid to O.P no.1 relating to policy No.3001/68147862/05/000 of the said vehicle of the complainant.  On 28.8.2017 the said car of the complainant had met with an accident when it hit with the big humps/rubblers in-between the road from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar near Baranga thereby causing damage to the bottom portion of the said vehicle and as a result of which the oil chamber and the engine guard of the car were damaged.  There was a big hole of 4-5 millimetre diameter in the oil chamber of the car and smoke started coming out from the engine.  The vehicle was brought to the authorized service centre M/s. OSL Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.,Cuttack for its repair.  As per the agreement of the policy and with the said authorized service centre it was a cashless repair since because the vehicle was insured with them.  The complainant had lodged a complaint before the O.P.no.1 vide claim No.MOT 06875104 on 29.08.2017.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 30.11.2017 after repair with a repair cost of Rs.2,98,722/- vide bill no.06875104.  To utter surprise of the complainant, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards the claim amount.  Though the complainant had sent legal notices to the O.Ps, no result yielded for which the complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to reimburse the full amount of Rs.2,98,722/- to him alongwith interest thereon and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-to him  towards his mental agony and harassment.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has attached copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  As per the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  According to them, the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as because the repairer of the vehicle is not made a party to this case.  According to them, the insurance companyis liable to bear the cost of the repair of the vehicle which are consistent with the nature of claim and not liable for any repair or renovation which are not consistent with the nature of damage.  They had entrusted a Surveyor, Er. Ashok Kumar Das who had submitted his report after assessing the loss to be of Rs.10,000/- only and accordingly, they had paid the said amount to the complainant.  It is also urged by the O.Ps that when the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid, the complainant had not objected nor had he produced any scrap of paper for the same to prove his dispute.  So when they had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the full and final satisfaction of the claim of the complainant the further claim is hit under the principles of estoppel.  They admit about the Private Car Insurance Package Policy bearing no.3001/68147862/05/000 which was effective from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2017 covering the risk of the car of the complainant bearing No.OR-01-R-7200 but subject to certain terms and conditions of the policy.  They also admit that the vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident on 28.8.2017 and the Surveyor Er. Ashok Kumar Das after assessing the loss had submitted his report on 10.11.2017.  The said two O.Ps have mentioned that the Oil chamber of the car of the complainant was repaired and thereafter the vehicle was shifted to other garage for repair of the engine.  The cost of the repair of the engine which were not damaged due to accident were not covered under the scope of the policy for which the same was disallowed.  The Surveyor had mentioned in his report that the engine of the vehicle was replaced which was not within the knowledge and consent of the Surveyor and further loss to the engine of the said vehicle was not covered under the scope of the policy as obtained by the complainant.  As such, the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the petition of the complainant with cost.

          The O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

             The complainant has also filed his evidence affidavit which when perused, it is noticed that the same is only the reiteration of the averments as made by him in his complaint petition.

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

          After going through the averments of the complaint petition, the contents of the written version, the evidence affidavit of the complainant and also the copies of available documents on record, it is noticed that the Hyundai i20 Car as purchased by the complainant bearing Regd. No.OR-01-R-7200 is not disputed.  The insurance policy of the said car with effect from 16.12.16 to 15.12.17 is also not in dispute.  The O.Ps also do not dispute about the said car meeting with an accident on 28.8.2017 by hitting a hump(rubbler) near Baranga area on road for which there was a hole in the Oil chamber.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was taken to M/s. OSL Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. for its repair.  The O.Psurge that the vehicle was shifted to another garage for the engine replacement and ofcourse the said statement of O.Ps is not supported by any concrete proof.  Be that as it may, admittedly a Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of the car of the complainant and the said Surveyor, Er. Ashok Kumar Das after assessing the loss had submitted his report on 15.11.17.    Copy of the said report is available being filed by the O.Ps herein this case.  The contention of the O.Ps that the engine of the car of the complainant was not covered under the Private Car Insurance Package Policy as obtained by him.  Complainant also has not disputed in pen and paper as regards the full and final settlement which made by the O.Ps of this case regarding his damaged car.  In absence of such, it can never be said that by not reimbursing the damage cost of the engine of the car of the complainant, the O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue is found to be in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue no.i&iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

 

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                        

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                         Member