Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/646/2022

Reetu Puri - 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/646/2022
Date of Institution	:	28/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	04/12/2023

Reetu Puri, resident of House No.5198/2, MHC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

… 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
	:	Ms. Simi Kandra, Advocate for OP-3

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Reetu Puri, 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 i20 car bearing registration No.CH-01-AZ-4416 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”), which was insured with OPs 1 & 2 vide policy valid w.e.f. 21.9.2021 to 20.9.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”). Due to an accident, the front bumper, tie member, panel hood, cover 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. Accordingly, OP-3 had issued estimate dated 24.3.2222 (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.  After that, OP-3 purchased the genuine parts from M/s Berkeley Auto, Chandigarh through tax invoices (Annexure C-3 colly.).  After repair of the subject car, OP-3 had issued cash memo dated 30.3.2022 (Annexure C-4) of ₹25,989/- 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 ₹25,989/- i.e. the actual amount spent by the complainant for the repair of the subject car, OPs had made payment of ₹13,784/- only through NEFT by making deduction of ₹12,205/- towards GST etc.  Thereafter, legal notice (C-5) was issued by the complainant, but, with no success.  It is further alleged that later on OPs had deputed surveyor to carry out the survey and accordingly the subject car was inspected by the surveyor in the workshop.  In this manner, the act of deduction of ₹12,205/- 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 1 & 2 were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions
3. In their written version, OPs 1 & 2/insurer, inter alia, took 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, the vehicle parts were not purchased by the customer, rather by the repairer/OP-3 and after assessing the genuine claim of the complainant, the same was paid to the complainant. Later on, the answering OPs also got the survey conducted from independent surveyor who vide report (Annexure R-1) assessed the claim of the complainant at ₹13,784/-, which has been paid to the complainant. Not only this, the surveyor had assessed the claim by following depreciation, as per the terms and 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 ₹13,784/- including labour charges of ₹7,100/- which has already been paid to the complainant, 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.
4. In its separate written version, OP-3 took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and also that the present consumer complaint is mere abuse of process of law by the complainant. On merits, admitted that the subject car was repaired by the answering OP.  However, the cause of action set up by the complainant against the answering OP is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. 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, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the 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. 21.9.2021 to 20.9.2022, as is also evident from the copy of subject policy (Annexure C-1), and further that the complainant got the subject car 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-4) of ₹25,989/- as total cost of repair, including replacement of parts and out of the said amount, OPs 1 & 2 had only paid an amount of ₹13,784/- by making deduction of ₹12,205/-, 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 their part 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. It is clear from the survey report (Annexure R-1) that the surveyor has ignored the GST having been received by the authorised dealer from the repairer/OP-3 who had purchased the parts against tax invoice (Annexure C-3) and after repairing the subject car, the said repairer had issued consolidated bill, including the genuine parts purchased from the authorised dealer vide Annexure C-3 as well as the labour charges.
   3. Though the insurer/OPs 1 & 2 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 ₹25,989/- vide bill (Annexure C-4), 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 for the repair of the subject car from the authorised dealer vide Annexure C-3, which clearly shows that the GST was paid and while issuing bill (Annexure C-4), the said repairer had not claimed any GST on the labour charges from the complainant.
   4. However, during the course of proceedings before this Commission, learned counsel for the complainant placed on record the assessment made by an independent surveyor, whose report is Annexure CX, and thereby confined the claim to that extent only.  Perusal of this report indicates that the said surveyor has assessed the claim by making deduction of rubber parts etc. and has assessed the total cost of repair to the tune of ₹15,722/-. 
   5. As it has come on record that insurer/OPs 1 & 2 have already released an amount of ₹13,784/- to the complainant out of the total claimed amount of ₹15,722/-, as assessed by surveyor of complainant, it is safe to hold that OPs 1 & 2 were unjustified in partially repudiating the claim of the complainant and said act amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OPs 1 & 2 and the complainant is certainly entitled for an amount of ₹1,938/- only (15722 – 13784) alongwith interest and compensation etc.
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 ₹1,978/- to the complainants 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 ₹2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹3,000/- 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