In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 212 /2010
1) Goverdhan Nopany,
Flat no.3 Jaju Bhawan, 1A, D.L. Khan Road,
P.S. Alipore, Kolkata-27. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Apeejey House, 7th 8th and 4th Floor, Block-B,
15, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 23 Dated 20-12-2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Goverdhan Nopany against the o.p. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the owner of a Maruti Swift Car no.WB 02W 2618 and is using the car for his personal necessity. He made with o.p. an insurance policy for accidental claim under policy no.3001/54668218/01/000 w.e.f. 8.8.09 to 7.8.10 (W.B. Kolkata).
The car met with accidents number of times and occasions and complainant made complaints for all such accidents to the concerned police stations as well as to o.p. and filed claims therefore with them dully filled up the claim form by physically visiting in the office of o.p. and in due consultation, in the presence and as per the instruction of their Senior Officer Mr. Sanjeeb Saha.
Although complainant during the period kept and parked the car idle in h is garage without plying in road yet no response or action to the said complaint and claim was taken in spite of a lapse of 6 months, consequently the complainant was compelled to wrote to o.p. a letter dt.8.1.10 interalia that if they still would not turn up the complainant will send the car for repairing to the service centre of M/s. Jalan Distributors, the ultimatum given for the purpose was upto 16.1.10 when th e car had been reported to send for repairing to the service centre by complainant. In the said letter complainant also indicated that the inspector / surveyor of o.p. who contacted the complainant to inspect the car also although promised and gave appointments several times but did not turn up or visit the place of the complainant for inspection of the accident car. Despite the said letter dt.8.1.10 nobody at that time also turn up or came from the side of o.p. to check the car and the damaged portion, even expiry of the given date of 16.1.10 and complainant considering his day to day suffering for non availability of the car to ply ultimately sent the car to the service centre on due intimation to o.p. and got it repaired through M/s. Jalan Distributor who sent their bill for Rs.28,920/- and Rs.337.19 to complainant and realized the amount from him in full.
By letter dt.12.3.10 complainant sent the said bill of M/s. Jalan Distributor along with money receipts total amounting to Rs.29,257.19 to o.p. and requested them to reimburse the amount and pay the same along with Rs.23,800/- towards transportation expenses incurred by complainant during the period separately to visit to his destination by taxi or other transport.
By a letter dt.28.5.10 o.p. disallowed the claim of complainant on the ground interalia that the estimate cost of repair including replacing if any, does not exceed of Rs.500/-. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Sole o.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle no.WB-02W-2618 and the said car was under insurance policy of o.p. and the said car met with an accident and the surveyor of o.p. contacted the claimant to inspect the car although promised but gave appointment several times but did not turn up for inspection of the aforesaid damaged car and complainant in order to avoid sufferings ultimately got the car repaired from Jalan Distributor at a cost of Rs./28,920/- and Rs.337.10 which the complainant paid to Jalan Distributor and on 12.3.10 complainant sent the bill to o.p. insurance company, but they did not pay heed to that and disallowed the claim vide letter dt.28.5.10 which appears to us highly unjustified and illegal and this action on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only (after standard deduction) to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
