Delhi

North East

CC/149/2023

Ankit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.149/23

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ankit Kumar, S/o Sh. Mahesh Kumar, R/o H.No. 700/45, Street No. 15A, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Service Branch address; 414, ICICI Lombard House, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple Main Gate, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025, Maharashtra Through Its Authorized Representative	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

01.06.2023 30.07.2024 16.08.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant was the owner of a car bearing no. DL 8C Y 1210 made Volkswagen Polo. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party under comprehensive Motor Vehicle Policy. The period of the said policy was from 30.06.2020 to 29.06.2021. Complainant stated that during the tenure of the policy, he had filed an Own Damage Claim stating that while the insured vehicle was being driven by             Mr. Anuj Kumar, i.e. brother of the Complainant, all of sudden deep ditch came between the road and front right portion of the vehicle went into it and the vehicle got imbalanced. Complainant stated that the due to that incident the insured vehicle dashed to divider and front right hand side and undercarriage damages had occurred. Complainant stated that after receiving the claim intimation a licensed surveyor Mr. Deepak Batra was appointed by the Opposite Party to assess the loss occurred to the insured vehicle. The surveyor after conducting the survey of the vehicle filed his report on 10.06.2021 stated that the aggregate cost of repair of the vehicle had come to Rs. 2,00,044/-. Complainant stated that while he go through the survey report of the surveyor it had been found that the surveyor had not considered so many damaged parts of the vehicle deliberately and show the repair cost below 75 % of IDV. Complainant stated that the surveyor had not added cost of some damaged parts which was Rs. 74,091/- and the aggregate cost of repair of the vehicle would be Rs. 2,74,135/- which was 103% of IDV. Complainant stated that Opposite Party and its surveyor insisting the Complainant to spent Rs. 2,74,135/- as repair of the said vehicle whose IDV was Rs. 2,65,561/-. Complainant stated that the subject claim was clearly qualifying the criteria of Constructive Total Loss as per General Regulation 8 of India Motor Tariff 2002. Complainant stated that on 03.01.2021, M/s Viraj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Noida workshop had given a repair estimate of amount Rs. 4,82,975.92 for the claim of this vehicle. Complainant stated that while assessing the loss, the surveyor wrongly applied depreciation/cut on Rubber, Plastic and Metal parts without giving an explanation or else justification for the same and appears that the surveyor had assessed the loss in vehicle in arbitrary manner and wrongly recommended to close the claim file. Complainant stated that he had already depreciated the cost of the vehicle at the IDV of Rs. 2,65,561/- and Opposite Party again applying the depreciation on parts for the purpose of deciding the eligibility for Constructive Total Loss settlement. Complainant stated that as per General Regulation 8 of Indian Motor Tariff 2002, a vehicle will be considered to be a CTL where the aggregate cost of retrieval and/or repair of the vehicle subject to terms and conditions of the policy exceed 75% of IDV. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the said vehicle was required to be considered as CTL and not for repairing. Complainant stated that Opposite Party was pressurized him to firstly get the insured vehicle repaired and spent Rs. 2,74,135/- as repair cost and submit the final repair invoice and then Opposite Party would adjudicate the claim of the Complainant. Complainant stated that when he did not provide the repair invoice, the Opposite Party intimated the Complainant vide an e-mail dated 12.08.2021 that it had closed the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 29.06.2021. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to consider the claim of the Complainant as Constructive Total Loss Claim Case under the General Regulation 8 of Indian Motor Tariff 2002 and pass the claim amount equivalent to IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,65,561/-. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 22,000/- on account  of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle i.e. car was insured by the Opposite Party. His car met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. The surveyor of the Opposite Party assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,044/-. His case is that the surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss and the surveyor intentionally did not considered some parts which were required to be replaced. His case is that the cost of the said parts is Rs. 74,091/-. His case is that by adding the said amount of Rs. 74,091/- to the loss assessed by the surveyor i.e. 2,00,044/-, it comes to Rs. 2,74,135/- which is 103% of the IDV. His case is that M/s Viraj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has given estimated dated 03.01.2021 for an amount of Rs. 4,82,975.92. The case of the Complainant is that as per General Regulation -8 of the Indian Motor Tariff 2002 it is the case of Constructive Total Loss (CTL).
5. The Complainant has not led any evidence to show that the surveyor has not done the assessment fairly. The Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that certain parts were intentionally and wrongly not included by the surveyor. The Complainant has mentioned in the complaint that M/s Viraj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has given the estimate of Rs. 4,82,975.92 but the Complainant did not file the said estimate or evidence of any person of M/s Viraj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the plea of the Complainant cannot be believed.
6. As per the report of surveyor the total loss is of Rs. 2,00,044/-, so the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,044/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Complainant himself has opted for litigation without any reasonable cause and base; therefore, no order is passed regarding the cost of litigation and mental harassment etc. Hence, the complaint is disposed off accordingly.  

 

7. Order announced on 16.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)