Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 427.
Instituted on : 04.08.2021.
Decided on : 17.07.2023.
Kapil s/o Satbir Singh R/o Ram Singh Colony Hansi Distt. Hissar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot no.149, 4th floor Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite party
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of a car bearing no.HR-13B-9797 and insured the same with the opposite party vide policy no.3001/201342571/00/B00 for the period 09.07.2020 to 08.07.2021 and insured amount is Rs.560000/-. On 25.01.2021 complainant was coming from village Kanshreti to Hansi and when he reached at Rohtak outer by-pass, due to some technical fault/short circuit in the engine, the car was totally burnt. Complainant made calls on 100 & 101 numbers. After some time police and fire brigade reached at the spot. Some documents of the complainant were also burnt with car. A DD no.0009/2021 dated 26.01.2021 was registered in PS I.M.T. Rohtak in this regard. The car was totally damaged. Complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the incident and officials of opposite party visited at the spot and completed all the requisite formalities. The vehicle was also inspected on the spot by the surveyor of respondent and the photographs of the damaged vehicle were taken by the spot surveyor of the insurance company. As per direction of surveyor the complainant took his car at Hansi. All the details required by the insurance company i.e. copy of registration certificate, copy of policy have been handed over to the surveyor and later on also submitted to the office of insurance company for obtaining the claim. After some time surveyor of the insurance company again visited on the spot at Hansi and told that the insurance company has settled the claim for a sum of Rs.560000/- and the same will be paid within a week and he obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers after stating that it is a procedure for settlement of claim. Complainant approached the respondent company many a times for making the payment of the amount but the opposite party neither paid the claim amount nor repudiated the claim of the complainant. 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 Rs.560000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., to pay compensation of Rs.20000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and 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 on receipt of the claim intimation regards the loss to the vehicle the insurance company registered the claim of the complainant vide claim no.MOT10696433 and communicated the same to the informer for better communication in regard to the present loss. During the correspondence answering respondent got foul smell and thus appointed Bombay forensic, Mumbai for forensic report and the answering respondent was left no other option except to repudiate the claim of the complainant. On the basis of report of forensic report, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 30.09.2021, duly served upon the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 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 in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9, also tendered documents Ex.C10 to Ex.C11 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 16.06.2023. Learned counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 19.01.2023.
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 03.09.2021 placed on record as Ex.R4 on the ground that : “Misrepresentation of facts(Causes of loss not justified with existing damages on vehicle & try to hide material facts about loss.) Claimed damages are manipulated, not due to any external impact not matching with loss description mentioned in claim form & due to sabotage cause, on an account of human intervention”. To prove the same, opposite party has placed on record ‘Motor fire forensic report’ Ex.R2 dated 19.03.2021. We have minutely perused the report Ex.R2 and affidavit Ex.RW1/A. 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 fire forensic investigation and analysis was conducted based on the information, photographs and documents provided. We reserve the right to conduct a comprehensive analysis to the available material”. Moreover, pictures of car have 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 officers of the forensic services created an imaginary picture of car and assessed the damages which is not justifiable. Moreover the report has been submitted by the laboratory with the insurance company without visiting on the spot or without physically examining the vehicle in question. It cannot be considered as genuine report as it is an imaginary report and hence cannot be believed. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party on the basis of alleged forensic 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.C11, an estimate of repair of vehicle is mentioned as Rs.1318148/-. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.560000/-. 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.560000/-) after deducting Rs.30000/- as salvage value i.e. to pay Rs. 530000/-(Rs.560000/- less Rs.30000/-)
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.530000/-(Rupees five lac thirty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.04.08.2021 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.
8. 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:
17.07.2023
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
