In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 22 / 2008 1) Mrs. Sunita Kochar, 1D, Amrapali, 35/7, Padmapukur Road, Kolkata-700020. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member Order No. 1 9 Dated 0 4 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 0 . The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed on 29.1.08 by the complainant Mrs. Sunita Kochar of 1D, Amrapali, 35/7, Padmapukur Road, Kolkata-20 u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the o.p. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Appejay House, 7th floor, Block-B, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-16 with a prayer to (a) recover the cost of repairing of the car amounting to Rs.21,900/- paid by the complainant, (b) pay penalty of Rs.10,000/-, (c) pay litigation cost and such other or order orders as the Forum thinks fit and proper. Specific case is that the complainant had taken an insurance policy under no.3001/51561347/00/000 from the o.p. in respect of the complainant’s private car bearing registration no. WB 24C 4176, a CORSA SAIL (1.4) made by General Motors, valued at Rs.2,85,670/- with the following coverage – (a) Loss or damage to the vehicle, (b) Liability to thirty parties, (c) Personal accident cover to owner-driver, and paid a premium of Rs.9960/- for the period from1.4.07 to 31.3.08 (annex-P-1, P-2). The said car had been damaged while the same was parked in the parking place in the residence of the complainant consequent to its submerging in flood water due to heavy shower on and from 22.9.07 to 23.9.07 and the complainant informed the o.p. through their helpline on 26.9.07 who registered the claim of such damage of the complainant under complain no. MOT000605102 and as per their advice the said car was moved to M/s. India Automobile, 2, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, Kolkata-20 on 8.9.07 (annex-P-6). The said car was inspected by the officer of the o.p. on 9.10.07 and 10.10.07 and the car was finally delivered by the aforesaid repairing centre on 17.10.07 after complete repairing of the said car on payment of Rs.21,900/- by the complainant (annex-P-3 & 4). In response to insurance claim no. MOT000605102 the o.p. repudiated the claim of he complainant in their letter dt.15.10.07 on the ground that “the vehicle was already repaired before the initial survey, hence the insurer could not get any opportunity to assess the loss. The claim is thus not admissible within the terms and conditions of the policy”. In view of the above referred; the o.p. close the claim as “No Claim” and because of this letter of the o.p. dt.15.10.07 the cause of action starts (annex-P-5). Even on getting the letter dt.31.10.07 of advocate on behalf of the complainant, the o.p. did not give any reply to his letter. Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant against the o.p. u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986. Decision with reasons :- The said car was insured under policy no.3001/51561347/00/000 which was submerged under the flood water due to heavy shower on 22.9.07 and 23.9.07. The complainant had to pay Rs.21,900/- in cash to M/s. India Auto Mobile, 2, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, Kolkata-20 for their repair of the damages of the said car (annex-P-3 & P-4), but the reimbursement of which was repudiated by the o.p. in their letter dt.15.10.07 (annex-P-5). The o.p. claimed that the claim bearing no.MOT000605102 was lodged by the complainant on 8.10.07 at 15-31 hrs. by one Rabi Kochar who claimed to be the relative of the complainant and not on 26.9.07 as stated by the petitioner. It is further more stated by the o.p. that while reporting the claim, the said Mr. Rabi Kochar purportedly and malafidely intimated the date of loss as on 3.10.07 which had also been registered at the call centre of the o.p. By reporting the aforesaid false and misleading story of loss the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the concerned motor policy and therefore, the o.p. is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant in respect of said alleged loss. Though the o.p. stated that they annexed the copy of the said claim intimation sheet and copy of repudiation letters, but those were not found with o.p’s w/v. The complainant informed the o.p. through the o.p’s helpline on 26.9.07 who registered her claim of such damage under complain no.MOT000605102 and as per their advice the said car was moved to M/s India Automobile on 8.9.07 (annex-P-6). But the o.p. did not adduce any evidence to prove that the above averment of the complainant is false. It is worth mentioning that the insurance company should send the surveyor on receipt of the first information, i.e. on 26.9.07 but the o.p. did not do that. They waited for the claim to be lodged by the complainant, which is totally unethical The averment of the o.p. that on receipt of the claim intimation, the surveyor was appointed on 8.10.07 to survey the nature of damage and the quantum of loss. The surveyor on the very next day, i.e. on 9.10.07 duly inspected the said vehicle at the garage where the said car was lying as per the information of said Rabi Kocher while lodging the claim (annex-w/v of o.p). But the surveyor should have been appointed immediately after receipt of damages of the said car on 26.9.07, which was not done by the o.p. for the reasons best known to them. It is to be noted that if the surveyor could have come earlier on receipt of information of damage of the car on 22.9.07 to 23.9.07 due to heavy shower, the o.p. could not raise the question of surveyor’s appearance on 9.10.07 but the surveyor came late for which they could not have assessed the quantum of loss (annex-w/v of o.p) and it is not the fault of the complainant. But on receive of the letter of advocate on behalf of the said complainant dt.31.10.07, the o.p. did not make any reply which indicates that they had nothing to say against the petition of complaint. Hence, ordered, That the o.p. is directed to pay (i) Rs.21,900/- (Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred) only to the complainant for their deficiency in service, (ii) a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for disservice and (iii) litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order to the o.p. and in default, the aforesaid amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till the recovery of the aforesaid amounts in full to be paid by the o.p. to the complainant. Fees paid are correct. The case is thus disposed of from this Forum. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd-______ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
