ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., ICICI Lombard Genereal Insurance Co.Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:15.11.2007 Date of Order: 20.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2275 OF 2007 A. Sudarshana, 140, 8th Cross, R.B.I Layout, J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore-560 078. Complainant V/S 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., II Floor, SVR Complex, 89, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 068. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-4000 051. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed for insurance claim. The complainant is the Assistant Manager in R.B.I, Bangalore. He had purchased Santro Car and taken comprehensive insurance policy from the opposite party. He parked the car on 16th September-2007 outside the temple. When he returned observed some scratches on the left side of the doors in bumper of the Car. He suspected some unknown vehicle/person might have caused the damage. He filed claim petition before the opposite parties and submitted all the documents. He lodged complaint to police. The opposite party insisted to produce FIR for admitting the claim. The police informed that FIR will not be issued for minor damage to the vehicle. The present damage to the vehicle does not require even in police complaint. Therefore, he sought compensation and claim. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version admitting that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The opposite parties requested the complainant to produce the FIR. The complainant has not produced the document and not cooperates with the opposite parties. The vehicle was duly examined by licensed surveyor and assessed the loss. The liability of the opposite parties as per the report is extends only to the extent of surveyors report. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the opposite parties are entitled to admit the claim put forward by the complainant? REASONS 5. It is a simple case of insurance claim. Almost all the facts are admitted. The complainant has produced a copy of complaint given to the police. It is the case of the complainant that, there was a minor damage to his vehicle when he parked the same near a temple at J.P Nagar. He submitted all the papers to the opposite parties for settling the claim. Advaith Motors Service was given estimation of repair around Rs. 14,000/-, but the opposite parties did not admit the claim on the ground that the complainant has not produced FIR. This is the case of minor damage to the vehicle and third party is involved. Therefore, the Police did not submit FIR. Under these circumstances the complainant was not in a position to produce the FIR to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have produced report of surveyor. As per the surveyor report the loss was estimated at Rs.13,348/- and the surveyor has shown the net assessed loss based on details shown in the report and the lowest liability under the report policy insurance works out to Rs.11,522-52. The complainant also produced repair estimate of Advaith Hyundai. The said estimation is Rs.14,440/-. The opposite parties cannot insist the production of FIR in this case. Because the damage caused to the vehicle was a minor damage, some scratches to the doors and other parts. No third party injury or damages not involved. Therefore, the police did not register a case and FIR was not issued. So, under these circumstances, it is not correct or justified on the part of the opposite parties to repudiate the claim. On the facts and circumstances, it is just proper and fair to admit the claim and to pay the amount as per the estimation made by the authorized surveyor Sri. G. Venkatesh. The opposite parties in the defence version also fairly conceded that the claim will be admitted as per the surveyors report and estimate. So, under these circumstances there is absolutely no difficult for me to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.13,348/-, the estimated amount of the surveyor to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.13,348/- to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the present proceeding from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed pay the above amount to the complainant directly by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
