DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.150/2008
Sh. Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Tejpal
R/o 112, Radha Swami Satsang,
Bhatti Mines Road,
New Delhi-110074 ….Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard
IIIrd Floor, Narayan Manjil
23, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Claims, Zenith House
2nd Floor, Mahalaxmi
Keshavrao Khade Marg,
Mumbai-400034 Maharashtra ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.03.08 Date of Order : 07.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he got insurance of vehicle/truck No. HR-38-L-5735 through OP vide policy cover note No.3008/51921437/00/000 and during the period of insurance the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. Having brought the facts of the said accident to the knowledge of the OP, OP is said to have asked the Complainant to get the same repaired and submit the claim for reimbursement. Accordingly, the Complainant got the vehicle repaired and is said to have incurred Rs.26,375/- on the repair of the vehicle and submitted the claim with the OP alongwith the copies of all the bills for reimbursement thereof. The Complainant further states that instead of reimbursing the entire amount the OP sent a cheque No.742453 dated 01.11.07 for Rs.6,581/- against total claim of Rs.26,375/- without assigning any reasons. Having pursued the matter with the OP and sending legal notice dated 20.12.2007 for reimbursement of the full amount and having received no positive response from the OP, the Complainant by pleading deficiency of service has invoked jurisdiction of this Forum through this complaint with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.19,794/- to the Complainant being the balance amount alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages/compensation for causing mental pain and agony to the Complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay cost of the proceedings.
OP has while contesting the claim of the Complainant stated that after receiving the information about the accident, the authorized representative /Surveyor of OP inspected the vehicle; that actual amount incurred had already been reimbursed to the Complainant. The OP has further pleaded that the Complainant has claimed excess amount without support of authentic documentary proof which is liable to be rejected. According to the OP, the Complainant got the vehicle repaired without giving information to the OP. The OP accepted payment of Rs.6581/- to the Complainant towards reimbursement of the actual damages. OP has further contested that as per the procedure insurance company gets the damaged vehicle inspected through its surveyor and thereafter only as per the assessment report of the surveyor, the amount of damage after repair is reimbursed to the owner which according to OP has been followed in this case. The OP has further doubted veracity of the claim of Rs.26,375/- as false and fabricated without any authenticity. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant has filed replication to the written statement of OP
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Gaba, Manager IC & LM has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the Counsel for OP and have also examined the material placed on record very carefully and dispassionately.
The bills do not inspire confidence and smack of fabrication. Vehicle was got towed on 09.10.2007 from Paali Chowk to another place (not readable) but certainly the destination is not Badarpur. As per copies of bills vehicle was got repaired at workshops at Badarpur, New Delhi. On the other hand, the conduct of OP is fully exhibited by payment of Rs.6,581/- towards the actual expenditure reimbursed to the Complainant as per their surveyor report. It is a matter of common knowledge that as per standard practice in vogue insurance companies do not reimburse the cost of repair of accidental vehicle without conducting investigation by their surveyors.
In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 07.05.16.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
