Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/164/2016

N.Sathish kumar S/o.Natarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance co LTD Rep by its Managar - Opp.Party(s)

M.selvam

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.10.2016

                                                               Order pronounced on:  20.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.164/2016

 

 

N.Sathishkumar,

S/o.Natarajan,

No.13/68, Dharmaraja Koil Street,

Thottapalayam, Vellore – 632 004.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.140, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.M.Selvam, M.Sathyan,   

                                                                      R.Venkatesan

 

Counsel for  opposite party                      : Mrs. Elveera Ravindran, K.Vinod

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

            The  complainant was driving his car on 20.03.2016  from Salem to Vellore, Near Thadagam Bridge at Dharmapuri, the car caught fire and was badly damaged. A complaint was given to the Adiyamankottai Police Station. Dharmapuri District in CSR.NO.73/2016. On the same day a complaint was registered with the office of the opposite party in Complaint.No.MOT 05410534 at about 8.45 Am but no action was taken by the company. Since no action was taken by the company he gave a second complaint on 11.04.2016 in I.D.No.110420161107. After the second complaint the officials of the opposite party company inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage. The total damage caused to the vehicle and the bill raised for repair of the car worked out to Rs.1,55,000/-. After 4 months the complainant was shocked to receive a sum of Rs.62,186/- as reimbursement on 16.06.2016. The opposite party has not given any reason for arriving at the above said sum. It is pertinent to note the declared value of the vehicle is Rs.2,95,110/- and he has paid a premium for the said sum. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party on receipt of the claim had appointed an independent surveyor and on the basis of the survey report and as per the terms and condition of the policy had issued a payment to a sum of Rs.62,186/- which the complainant had received in full and final settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The  complainant had insured his Car Maruthi Swift VDI with the opposite party  and the policy certificate is Ex.A1. Policy coverage was for a period  from 10.04.2015 to 09.04.2016. During the period   i.e. on 20.03.2016 while the complainant was driving his car from Salem to vellore near Thadagam Bridge at Dharmapuri  the car caught fire  and damaged. Photograph of the damaged car is Ex.A2. The incident was reported before Adiyamankottai police station and the CSR issued by the police is Ex.A3. Ex.A4 is the certificate issued by the concerned police for fire accident. Crane service was utilized by the complainant and the receipt for the same is Ex.A5. Insurance Policy with the opposite party is admitted. The complainant alleges that the complaint was registered before the opposite party  but  they have not taken any action and  only after  registering the second complaint opposite party  have assessed the damaged vehicle through their surveyor but no such complaint copies as alleged by the complainant is filed. A letter was addressed by the opposite party to the complainant in Ex.B5 dated 18.05.2016 requesting them to furnish some particulars for concluding the claim. Legal notice was issued by the complainants to the opposite party dated 24.08.2016 vide Ex.A6. It is also stated in the legal notice issued by the complainant that the reimbursement of a sum of Rs.62,186/- was received by the complainant. Survey report dated  06.09.2016 is Ex.B3. The surveyor assessed the damages to the value of  Rs.62,186/-and  his professional fee paid as per the bill attached is Rs.1,700/- in Ex.B3 series and also  the detailed assessment sheet is Ex.B4.

05. As per the contention of the complainant he  is not satisfied with the reimbursement amount since the declared value of the vehicle is Rs.2,95,110/- and had paid premium for such sum and he is also under the impression that he is  entitled  to claim up to declared value  in case of damage to the vehicle. The bills for the alleged repair are filed as Ex.A8 by way of filing additional proof-affidavit at a later stage. Even though Ex.A8 bills are submitted before this forum the submission of bills  and the estimation submitted for the alleged damage to the vehicle to an extent of Rs.1,55,000/-  by the complainant to the opposite party  are denied by the opposite party  and there is also no proof for having submitted the same to the opposite party.

06. It is inferred from the contention of the complainant that neither a surveyor nor an expert has assessed the value of the damages on behalf of the complainant for the vehicle. The complainant  had received the reimbursement amount of Rs.62,186/-  on 16.06.2016 as full and final settlement without any protest.  On perusal of the survey report in Ex.B3 Vehicle is of the year 2009 and  that the assessment was arrived on the basis of depreciation and the age of the vehicle. No contra evidence is produced by the complainant to prove the assessment is incorrect and it is not challenged by the complainant. The allegation of the delayed work of assessing the damage caused to the car due to which the complainant was put to hardship and the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party  is not  substantiated by the complainant. The complaint is vague and having received the reimbursement of the assessed value for the damage to the car without any protest,  the complainant has come forward to file this vague complaint only in the month of  October 2016. Even though the declared value of the vehicle is Rs.2,95,110/-and the premium for the said sum is paid by the complainant, he is entitled to the assessed value for damages of  the vehicle only as per the documentary proof submitted by the  opposite party when there is no contra evidence is put forth by the complainant. Therefore it is concluded from the above discussions that the complainant had failed to prove the alleged deficiency and we find no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

07. POINT NO.2:

It is decided as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 10.04.2015          Car Insurance policy copy

 

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Car Photo

 

Ex.A3 dated 01.04.2016          CSR 73/2016 issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Adiyamankottai Police Station

 

Ex.A4 dated 01.04.2016          Certificate issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Adiyamankottai Police Station

 

Ex.A5 dated 20.03.2016          Crane Serive receipt

 

Ex.A6 dated 24.08.2016          Legal Notice

 

Ex.A7 dated 27.08.2016          Acknowledgement Card

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Bills  

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Policy of Insurance

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Terms and Conditions of the Policy

 

Ex.B3 dated 06.09.2016                   Survey Report

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                      Assessment Sheet

 

Ex.B5 dated 18.05.2016                   Letter sent by opposite parties to the complainant

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT