DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.563/2013
Devender Gupta,
R/o B-1/28, 2nd Floor,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ….Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
Through its Manager,
S-13, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110016
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
ICICI Lombard House,
Through its Manager
414, Veer Sarvarkar Marg
Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400025.
3. Shri Soman Mandal,
Surveyor of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
S-13, 1st and 2nd Floor,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110016
4. Spirit Autocars (I) Ltd.,
Plot No.F-7, Block B-1,
Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110044
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 27.11.2013
Date of Order : 16.05.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, Complainant took insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, hereinafter referred to as OP-1 for the period 05.07.2012 to 04.07.2013. Complainant paid premium of Rs 30,733/- towards the comprehensive policy.
2. Complainant’s car got damaged on 28.03.2013 and RHS (Right Hand Side) rear door; RHS control panel; Rear Bumper and RHS Tail Light were damaged.
3. Complainant informed OP-1 regarding the incident on the same date and took his car for repairs to Spirited Auto Cars (I) Limited(OP-4). A job estimate was prepared by OP-4 on 02.04.2013 and the car was repaired. The surveyor of OP-1 i.e Mr Soman Mandal (OP-3) did not approve estimated repairs, the rear bumper and tail light were not changed even though they were damaged. The Complainant had to get the same repaired from M/s Naseem Automobiles who raised a bill of Rs.10,000/- on 14.04.2013 which was paid by the Complainant in cash.
4. It is next stated that in the midnight of 30.06.2013 and 01.07.2013, car of the Complainant was again damaged while it was parked outside his residence. The back glass and both tail lights were severely damaged. The Complainant accordingly informed OP-1 on 01.07.2013 stating that he noticed the abovesaid damage in the morning.
5. Meanwhile, Complainant got the Insurance policy renewed from OP-1 on 05.07.2013, which was effective from 05.07.2013 to 04.07.2014. Complainant paid premium of Rs.27,038/- for the renewed comprehensive policy. A job estimate dated 05.07.2013 for the damages in the car was prepared by OP-4, however Surveyor of OP-1 i.e OP-3 again approved only certain works and rest were declined. It is alleged that OP-3 demanded illegal gratification for rest of the jobs.
6. It is further stated that Complainant on 10.07.2013 paid total amount of Rs.16,458/- for repairs of the damaged vehicle whereas, the surveyor had approved only Rs.4,771/-. Complainant had no option but to pay balance sum of Rs.11,687/- in order to take delivery of the car.
7. Alleging deficiency of service it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,687/-@ 18% p.a to the Complainant being the amount deducted with interest, from the bill for the repairs of the car ; Award a sum of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental trauma to the Complainant and litigation cost.
8. OP-1 resisted the complaint raising preliminary objection that the claim amount of Rs.7,320/- for the loss dated 28.03.2013 and claim amount of Rs.4,638/- for the loss dated 01.07.2013 was duly paid , on behalf of the Complainant to OP-4 under cashless claim.
9. It is stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant has filed single complaint for different claims which have already been released by OP-1. It is next stated that the Complainant is trying to mislead the forum by making false allegation against the surveyor.
10. It is further stated that Complainant has presented wrong facts by stating that the rear bumper of the car was not considered under the claim dated 28.03.2013 filed for damage. For the second claim dated 01.07.2013 Complainant has failed to realize that in case of replacement of any part the claim is paid after applying depreciation on that part. The complianant is trying to get his claim passed even for the parts (dickey and bumper) which were not mentioned in the claim form.
11. It s further stated that OP-1 appointed an independent surveyor who assessed the loss and found that the damage caused to the vehicle in the incident dated 28.03.2013 is repairable. It is stated that under the policy conditions in case of damage to the vehicle, Insurance company has the option to decide as to whether the part needs replacement or it can be reinstated by repairing, denting and painting. Further, in case parts are to be replaced then depreciation is to be applied as per the policy conditions. Under this claim Complainant wanted replacement of old damaged parts i.e Bumper, Rear RHS door , Panel and was pressing its replacement, though it could be easily reinstated by denting and painting.
12. The surveyor after applying the compulsory excess clause of Rs.1000/- as per policy conditions, found that the total amount be payable to the Complainant was Rs.7,320/-. Complainant paid only Rs.1000/- out of Rs.8320/- and the balance was directly paid by OP-1 to OP-4 under cashless claim.
13. It is next stated that the Complainant stated that he got the rear bumper and both tail lights changed from M/s Naseem Automobiles whereas in the claim form the Complainant had stated that the damage was caused to the right side of the vehicle therefore damage to both tail lights of the vehicle does not arise.
14. As regards claim dated 01.07.2013 Complainant while filling the claim form has stated that only the back glass and both tail lights had got damaged. But when he got the estimate prepared fromOP-4, the Complainant got the Rear bumper, V kit and Dickey plus monogram incorporated. However OP-3 approved the replacement of rear glass and necessary assessor/kit attached with it and declined other parts as same were not found payable. After applying the excess cost of Rs.1000/- as per policy conditions total amount found to be payable by the Complainant was Rs.4,638/- . The Complainant was made to pay only Rs.1000/- out of Rs.5,683/-and the balance approved amount of Rs.4,638/- was directly paid by OP-1 to OP-4 under cashless claim.
15. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
16. Complainant being dissatisfied with the claims passed by OP-1 with regard to the damages in his vehicle has approached this commission. It is seen that as regards the loss/damage to the vehicle on 28.03.2013, though the Complainant received the claim amount of Rs.7,320/- but the Complainant alleges deficiency of service as the surveyor of OP-1 did not approve the claim for rear bumper and the tail light though it was damaged. It is made clear that as per the policy, anything that can be repaired is not replaced. Moreover Complainant has given a very evasive reply in the rejoinder to the claim of the OP that as the damage was caused on the right side of the vehicle how is it that damage has occurred to the left side tail light. Even the estimate prepared by OP-4 does not mention about the left hand side rear side tail light .
17. As regards claim dated 01.07.2013, it is seen from the claim form filed by the Complainant (appended at Page No.21 of the complaint) that under the heading – ‘Description of the accident’ Complainant has claimed damages for Back glass and both tail lights. But the estimate prepared by OP-4 includes repair of Rear bumper, B-kit, Dickey and monogram, whereas no damage to Dickey or Bumper is mentioned in the claim form. Complainant cannot be allowed to get all the old parts of the vehicle repaired/replaced by the insurer under the garb of the Insurance cover.
18. In a case titled as Amrendra Mishra & Anr. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd & Ors (Revision Petition no.3289 of 2003). It was held that :
“…. We are not inclined to award any sum over and above the amount as recommended by the surveyor for we have to keep certain facts in mind. The person running a workshop would like to inflate the cost of such repairs in their own interest and in inclination of the insured is making the attempt to convert the vehicle as good as totally new vehicle…..”
19. As regards illegal gratification demanded by the Surveyor, it is noted that no complaint qua OP-3 has been made nor any request that the vehicle be assessed by another surveyor has been filed by the Complainant. Complainant can only claim more than what was assessed by the surveyor if he would have objected to this surveyor’s assessment.
20. In view of the discussion above , we are of the opinion that Complainant has not been able to establish his case. Hence, the case is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website
