Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/87/2019

Sanjay - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lambord - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Verma

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint Case No. : 87 of 2019

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 28.03.2019

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 18.03.2024

 

Sanjay son of Sh. Dharampal R/o village Bakhtawarpura, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 401 & 402, 4^th Floor, Interface-11, New Linking Road, Malad (West) Mumbai-400064 and having one of its branch at Tower D, Twelth Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 through its authorized signatory/Branch Manager.

 

2. Mr.Rakesh, Insurance Agent office at Patel Nagar, Opposite RTO Office, Bhiwani.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Sonu Sihag, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.

Mrs.Reena Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is owner of one Canter bearing regn. No.HR-39C-4781 (hereinafter referred to as ‘vehicle’). The vehicle was insured from OP No.1 w.e.f. 20.10.2018 to 19.10.2019 through OP No.2 by paying a premium of Rs.44,927/-. It is averred that Shiv Kumar son of Sh. Satbir R/o Kheri Sher Khan, was driver on the vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident on 03.11.2018 at about 2.30 p.m near village Shilani due to sudden appearance some cows in front of the vehicle.  DDR No.44 dated 03.11.2018 was lodged in this regard. OP insurance company was also informed who allow complainant to get repairs of the vehicle from anywhere. As such, the vehicle was got repaired from Motor Workshop and Rs.3.00 lac was incurred.  Claim qua this amount was lodged with OP No.1. Vide letter dated 08.01.2019, OP No.1 required driving license of complainant. Later on, OP No.1 vide letter dated 01.02.2019 refused to process the claim of complainant being misrepresentation of facts. However, as per complainant, all necessary documents were submitted with the OP insurance company. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into mental and physical harassment besides huge monetary loss.  In the end, prayed for issuance of directions to OPs to pay Rs.3.00 lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written statements.

3.                 OP No.1 filed written statement qua cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it is submitted that on intimation of damage to the vehicle, spot survey was got conducted from surveyor and in the final survey, loss to the vehicle was assessed as Rs.62,450/-. It is stated that vide letter dated 08.01.2019, complainant was required to fulfill  certain formalities  but documents were not submitted despite waited sufficient. So vide letter dated 01.02.2019, OP company repudiated the claim of complainant. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs qua it.

4.                 OP No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the answering OP is not at all agent or broker of OP No.1 and also was not authorized to issue the insurance policy and thus it has been impleaded as unnecessarily. In the end, this OP denied for any deficiency in service and thereby any harassment or monetary loss to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                 In evidence of complainant, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-22 were tendered and closed the evidence on 10.09.2022.

6.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr.Aditya Pandey, authorized person of OP No.1 alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 were tendered in evidence of OP No.1 and closed the same on 13.04.2023.

7.                 OP No.2 got recorded his statement on 23.05.2023 to the effect that his written statement may be read into his evidence and closed the evidence.

8.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                 Perusal of repudiation letter (Annexure R-2) reveals that the claim of complainant was rejected on ground ‘Misrepresentation of facts (driver details are misrepresented at intimation/claim form from actual & try to hide the material facts).’  We have perused the claim intimation sheet (Annexure R-4) wherein name of driver has been written as Sanjay but it is not signed by any person whereas in the claim form (Annexure R-5) name of driver has been mentioned as Shiv Kumar and this documents is signed by complainant Sanjay. Learned counsel for complainant has drawn our attention towards surveyor’s report (Annexure R-7) wherein it is clearly mentioned that Shiv Kumar was driver on the vehicle at the time of accident. The complete particulars w.r.t. driver are as under:-

                              Name of driver        :         Shiv Kumar

                              D.L. No.                 :         RJ19 20170005248

                              Date of Issue          :         26.04.2017

                              Valid Upto              :         15.05.2021

                              Issuing Authority    :         Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Type of License      :         LMV-TR: Light Motor                                                            Vehicle-Transport

                    The surveyor’s report further reveals that the accident was occurred on 02.11.2018 at 2:30 (night)  and after the accident, the OP insurance company was informed and it deputed surveyor who conduct survey on 03.11.2018 and assessed loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.62,450/-. Meaning thereby that as per surveyor’s report, Shiv Kumar was driver on the vehicle, at the time of accident.  Perusal of DDR No.44 dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure R-6) has been recorded on the statement of Shiv Kumar son of Satbir Singh which also fortifies that at the time of accident, Shiv Kumar was driver on the accidental vehicle.

10.               Complainant side to prove that Shiv Kumar was driver on the vehicle has placed on record his driving license (Annexure C-3, legible copy of DL attached). The particulars of this DL conforms with that are mentioned   in the surveyor’s report.  Admittedly, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.7,75,000/- and on the day of accident the vehicle was under insurance cover. Further, as per Annexure C-2 & C-4, complainant was registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant point of time.

11.               In view of above discussion, we are of the view that Shiv Kumar was driver on the vehicle at the time of accident and the OP insurance company arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant and by such act & conduct of OP insurance company, complainant must have suffered a considerable monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment. We have thoroughly gone through the surveyor’s report  as well as  the repairs bills placed on record (Annexures C-10, C-11 to C-20) and came to conclusion that the surveyor’s report is trustworthy in comparison to the repairs bills placed on file by complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.62,450/- as assessed by the surveyor. As such, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 insurance company is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.62,450/- (Rs. Sixty two thousand four hundred fifty) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) on account of harassment caused to the complainant.
3. And to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 18.03.2024.