Delhi

East Delhi

CC/456/2022

VIJAY CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD G.I. CO. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF :

VIJAY CHOUDHARY Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

 

CC No.           456/2022

Date:-            04.08.2023

Present:-      None

 

Arguments on admission has already been heard.

On 25.07.2023 the brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he is the owner of vehicle DL-2CAY-9195 and having policy for Rs. 10 lakh w.e.f. 10.03.2022 to 09.03.2023. His vehicle met with road accident on 18.05.2022 upon which he took the vehicle at service center agency of the OP, who gave estimate of the repair expenses dated 19.05.2022 to the extent on Rs. 4,47,367/- which the OP company is not approving and as such he issued a legal notice to no response and ultimately he filed the present complaint praying that OP is be directed to approve estimate sent by agency so that the service center would start repair of the vehicle and also pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakh alognwith the legal expenses of Rs. 21000/-.

            The case is at admission stage and vide order dated 27.10.2022 query was raised that the nature of accident as is being argued is not matching with the facts of the case and it was fixed for fresh arguments. The complainant on 25.07.2023 has filed one document which is dated 01.07.2022 issued by the OP and it is interalia mentioned in that letter by the OP that it has rejected the claim by the writing following words “We regret to inform you that as per ICLM team vehicle changed at the time of P.I. report and survey and claim is repudiated status and informed same to customer.”

Perused.  

There are various discrepancies in the petition i.e. it is no where mentioned as to where the accident had happened, who was driving the vehicle, whether such person was having valid Driving License, on the date of alleged accident, whether such person has suffered any medical injury on account of such huge accident which according to the complainant would incure the cost of repair for amount of Rs. 4,47,367/- and further there is no explanation of all these facts in the entire complaint. Not only this, the only prayer as made is to the OP to approve the estimate whereas the OP has already rejected the claim and there is no prayer made by the complainant that repudiation of the claim is not legally valid. Not only this, the complainant has also filed a bill which apparently shows that the vehicle has already been got repaired and there is no such fact in the complaint on this aspect.

Keeping in view of the facts, Commission is of the opinion that the complaint as drafted is too vague to be considered and lacks material particulars as mentioned herein above. Therefore complaint in the present form is rejected.

File be consigned to Record Room.