Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 114
Instituted on : 14.02.2022
Decided on : 10.07.2023
Bijender Singh aged-39 years S/o Ramesh Kumar R/o VPO Chuliana, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., R/o Shyamji Complex, B-17, Ground Floor, Near Delhi Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.
Second Address: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 12th Floor, Tower-D, Global Business Park, Mehrauli-Gurugram Road, Near Guru Dronacharya Metro Station, Gurugram.
……….Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vikram Singh Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a vehicle SUV bearing registration no. UK-07BT-0101, Engine No. D5244T151517344, Chasis No. YV1DZ8256F2687163. On 03.04.2021 complainant got his vehicle insured with the opposite party vide policy no. 3001/219222905/00/B00 dated 03.04.2021 which was valid w.e.f. 03.04.2021 to 02.04.2022. It is further submitted that on 23.05.2021 near MR DAV School, Sonepat Road, Rohtak the vehicle of complainant got damaged due to sudden brake applied by the vehicle running in front of the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant intimated the opposite party within time on 23.05.2021 on the Insurance App of the company and also uploaded all requisite documents. On 27.05.2021, one of the officials of the opposite party made a call to the complainant for the survey of the vehicle and the complainant kept the vehicle available for survey but none of the representatives visited the complainant for survey. On several requests, the opposite party got the vehicle inspected by its surveyor on 04.06.2021 through online mode. On 16.06.2021 they again contacted him for physical survey of the vehicle and the complainant accordingly got his vehicle physically surveyed. On the request of insurance company, the complainant also got inspected the place of occurrence on 07.08.2021. Complainant requested the opposite party several times to pay the claim amount but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 25.10.2021. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.31,90,000/- alongwith 18% interest per annum, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.31,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the complaint has been filed by the registered owner of the vehicle no. UK-07-BT-0101, which was insured from the opposite party vide policy no. 3001/219222905/00/B00 for the period 03.04.2021 to 02.04.2022. During the correspondence with the complainant opposite party got the foul smell. Furthermore, the opposite party alongwith the other insurance companies is getting the total damage claims of vehicle having the high IDV with lower market price, wherein registered owner had just got the vehicle and policy transferred in his name. So, the opposite party appointed M/s Bombay Forensic to carry out the significant analysis of the accident and to ascertain whether the accident scenario relates to the insured version in the claim form. The forensic laboratory i.e. M/s Bombay Forensic got the forensic examination of the vehicle and submitted his detail report dated 24.09.2021. As per the alleged report, the damages are not correlating with the insured’s mentioned events or scenario. Hence the facts of the said incidence have been misrepresented. There has been misrepresentation of material fact related to the reported accident for the reasons known and to gain benefits of the claim under the insurance policy. Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. It is wrong and denied that the complainant is entitled for any compensation and Rs.31,90,000/- as alleged. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 17.03.2023. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex. RW1/B, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 18.04.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter dated 25.10.2021 placed on record as Ex.C3 on the ground that : “Misrepresentation of facts(Causes of loss & loss scenario not justified with existing damages on vehicle & try to hide material facts about loss.) Claimed damages are misrepresented, not matching with loss description mentioned in the claim form”. To prove the same, opposite party has placed on record ‘Accident reconstruction report’ Ex.R3 dated 24.09.2021. The perusal of Ex.R3 itself shows that the matter has been referred to the alleged forensic laboratory on dated 10.09.2021whereas the incident took place on 23.05.2021. Meaning thereby there is delay of approximately 4 months in assigning the case to Bombay Forensic Laboratory. We have minutely perused the report Ex.R3 and affidavit Ex.RW1/B . The report has been prepared by the Bombay Forensic Officers without visiting on the spot. This fact has been admitted in the report in Sr. no.4 which is as under:- “The accident reconstruction and analysis was conducted without prejudice based on the information, photographs and documents provided. We reserve the right to conduct a comprehensive analysis to the available material”. Moreover, a picture of truck has been shown in this report to analyze the damages of the vehicle. We have minutely perused all the relevant documents placed on record by both the parties. The make, model of the truck has not been disclosed anywhere by either of the party. The officers of the forensic laboratory created an imaginary picture of truck and assessed the damages which is not justifiable. Moreover the report has been submitted within 14 days by the laboratory with the insurance company without visiting on the spot or without physically examining the vehicle in question. We are unable to understand that without physical verification or without spot inspection merely on the basis of photographs how an incident can be reconstructed. It cannot be considered as genuine report it is an imaginary report and hence cannot be believed. One more objection has been taken by the opposite parties in written statement that the IDV of the vehicle is on higher side. To prove this fact the insurance company has not placed on record any document. Moreover insurance of the vehicle has been done by the opposite party after taking into consideration the make, model and condition of the vehicle and the IDV of the vehicle was assessed by the opposite party itself. Moreover it is an admitted fact that the complainant has not purchased the new vehicle and the same was transferred in the name of complainant. As such a wrong plea regarding higher IDV has been taken by the opposite party. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party on the basis of alleged reconstruction report is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per the estimate placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C4, there is estimate of Rs.3810199/- for repair of the vehicle. A certificate ‘Annexure-JN-A’ has been placed on record by Bharat Autozone to prove the same. The estimate of repair is more than the IDV of vehicle. Hence the vehicle comes under total loss. As such opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of vehicle(Rs.3190000/-) after deducting 15% amount as salvage value i.e. to pay Rs. 2711500/-(Rs.3190000/- less 15%)
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.2711500/-(Rupees twenty seven lac eleven thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.02.2022 till its realization, to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to move an application to the Registration Authority for cancellation of RC within 15 days.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.07.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
