Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/645/2022

Managing Committee - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sushma Chopra

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/645/2022
Date of Institution	:	28/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	04/12/2023

Managing Committee, SS CBT, Village & Post Office Bhadhani, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur through its Managing Director Sh.S.K. Punj.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh, 160002, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 414, ICICI Lombard House, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Main Gate, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400021, through Claims Officer.
3. M/s R.R. Automobiles, Plot No.318, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh through its owner.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri alongwith Sh. Kartik, Advocates for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 already ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Managing Committee, SS CBT through its Managing Director, S.K. Punj, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of an Audi Q-7 car bearing registration No.PB-35-T-0009 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) which was insured with the insurer/OPs 1 & 2 vide policy (Annexure C-1), which was valid w.e.f. 19.2.2022 to 18.2.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”). Due to an accident, front wind shield glass and other parts of the subject car were to be replaced by way of repairs. The complainant had taken the subject car to M/s R.R. Automobiles (OP-3) for its repairs/change of parts and other repairs. In pursuance to the proposed repair, OP-3, had issued estimate dated 12.4.2022 (Annexure C-2). Thereafter claim was lodged by the complainant with OPs 1 & 2/insurer with regard to the accidental damage to the subject car. OP-3 had purchased genuine parts from M/s Sai Auto Glass, Chandigarh through tax invoice (Annexure C-4).  After repair of subject car, OP-3 issued bill dated 13.4.2022 (Annexure C-3) of ₹45,603/- in favour of the complainant.  The representatives of OPs 1 & 2 had verified all these facts at their own end to their satisfaction and it was informed by them that they will not pay GST amount to the local workshops, including the workshop of OP-3.  In this manner, instead of making reimbursement of ₹45,603/- i.e. the actual amount spent by the complainant for the repair of the subject car, OPs had made payment of ₹30,701/- only through NEFT by making deduction of ₹14,902/- towards GST etc. Thereafter, legal notice (Annexure C-5) was issued by complainant, but, with no success.  In this manner, the act of deduction of ₹14,902/- by the insurer/OPs 1 & 2 from the actual amount spent by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 1 & 2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action. On merits, admitted that the subject car was insured with the answering OPs, but, alleged that the whole repair of the subject car was carried out by the complainant at RR Enterprises (OP-3). In fact, vehicle parts were not purchased by the customer, rather by the repairer/OP-3 and after assessing the genuine claim of complainant, same was paid.  Later on, the answering OPs also got the survey conducted from the independent surveyor who vide report (Annexure R-1) assessed the claim of the complainant at ₹30,701/-, which has been paid to the complainant. Not only this, the surveyor had assessed the claim by following depreciation, as per terms & conditions of the subject policy for rubber/nylon/plastic parts etc. and by keeping into consideration the depreciation as per the age of the vehicle, as provided under the policy. In this manner, as the surveyor has assessed the total claim of the complainant at ₹30,701/- including labour charges of ₹3,500/- which has already been paid to the complainant, and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.1.2023.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject car, which was insured with the OPs 1 & 2/insurer w.e.f 19.2.2022 to 18.2.2023, as is also evident from the copy of subject policy (Annexure C-1), and further that the complainant got the same repaired from OP-3, who had firstly given estimate (Annexure C-2) with respect to the repair of the subject car and later on raised invoice (Annexure C-3) of ₹45,603/- as total cost of repair, including replacement of parts, and out of the said amount, OPs 1 & 2/insurer had only paid an amount of ₹30,701/- by making deduction of ₹14,902/-, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OPs 1 & 2 are unjustified in deducting the said amount out of the claimed amount by the complainant and the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OPs 1 & 2 have rightly deducted the aforesaid amount as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the terms and conditions of the subject policy, repair bills, having been proved by the complainant and the survey report and the same are required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Perusal of copy of subject policy (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the same does not contain the terms and conditions of the policy.  Though OPs 1 & 2 have come with the defence that as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy, deduction is permissible for rubber/nylon/plastic parts etc., but, since the said terms and conditions of the policy have not seen the light of the day as even OPs 1 & 2 have failed to produce the same on record, it is unsafe to hold that the aforesaid deduction has been made by the OPs/insurer as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy.  OPs tried to justify the said deduction by relying upon the survey report (Annexure R-1), but, since the primary evidence i.e. the terms and conditions of the subject policy have not been proved on record and at the same time the surveyor has also given reference in his report that the loss has finally been settled subject to policy terms and conditions, the same is of no help to the OPs/insurer making further clear that the aforesaid deductions have been made by the OPs arbitrarily.
   4. Moreover, it is clear from the surveyor report that the surveyor has ignored the GST having been paid by dealer from whom repairer/OP-3 had purchased the parts against tax invoice (Annexure C-4) and after repairing the subject car, the said repairer had issued consolidated bill, including the genuine parts purchased from the dealer as well as the labour charges.
   5. Though the insurer/OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that, in fact, the repairer, who was not the authorised dealer and was not having any GST number, has wrongly claimed the total amount of ₹45,603/- vide Annexure C-3, but, this ground is without merit, especially when it stands proved on record that the said repairer has only prepared the consolidated bill by including the cost and GST of genuine parts purchased by him for the repair of the subject car from the dealer vide Annexure C-4, which clearly shows that the GST was paid and while issuing bill (Annexure C-3), the repairer had not even claimed any GST on the labour charges from the complainant. However, it is apposite to mention here that though the invoice (Annexure C-4) issued by the dealer is for ₹34,632/- only, but, the repairer while issuing the consolidated bill (Annexure C-3) has mentioned ₹35,413/- for the same, besides other items, therefore, by subtracting an amount of ₹781/- (35,413/- – 34,632/- = ₹781) from the consolidated bill (Annexure C-3), the total amount comes to ₹44,822/- and not ₹45,603/- in Annexure C-3, out of which the insurer/OPs 1 & 2 have already refunded an amount of ₹30,701/-.  
   6. Thus, one thing is clear on record that the insurer/OPs have wrongly deducted an amount of ₹14,121/- (₹44,822 – ₹30,701 = ₹14,121/-) which was actually paid by the consumer with the bonafide belief that genuine parts are being replaced in the car by the repairer by purchasing the same from the dealer and the insurer cannot be permitted to take such hyper technical objections while partially repudiating the claim of the complainant.
   7. In view of the foregoing, it is safe to hold that the OPs 1 & 2 were unjustified in partially repudiating the claim of the complainant and said act amounts to deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against them. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs  1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹14,121/- (less excess clause, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 28.6.2022 onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. As no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-3, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 04/12/2023 hg		Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
		Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
		Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member