Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/295/2021

Bunty - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Chauhan

23 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.295 of 2021.               Date of Instt.:26.11.2021 Date of Order: 23.04.2024.

Bunti son of Duni Chand resident of House No.152/7 Ward No.7 Taria Mohalla, Shiv Chowk, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, D Twelth Global Business Park, Mehroli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg near Sidhi Vinayak Mandir, Prabhadevi.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:        Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                                Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                             Dr.K.S.Nirania, Member.

Present:       Sh.Rahul Chauhan,Advocate for the complainant.                                       Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that he is registered owner of the Honda Activa HR22H-2059 which was insured with the Op No.1 vide insurance policy No.3005/211343377/00/B00 having validity for the period commencing from 01.12.2020 to 30.11.2021 for a sum assured of Rs.37,500/- and regarding this premium amount of Rs.1150/- was also paid to the Ops; that on 19.03.2021 when the scooter in question was parked in the street all of a sudden fire broke out in the same and the complainant tried to extinguish the same by opening the back seat but all went in vain, therefore, officials of fire bridge were called who controlled the fire; that regarding this rapat No.14 dated 20.30.2021 was lodged; that the complainant intimated the Ops; that Surveyor of the Ops  conducted the spot survey and the vehicle was taken to Manjhu Honda for repair; that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents to the Ops including the bills; that the complainant requested the Ops number of times to settle the claim but the Ops repudiated the claim vide letter No.710021925488 dated 07.10.2021. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A Annexure C1 to Annexure C6.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their reply wherein several preliminary objections such as concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have been taken.  It has been further submitted that after getting the claim intimation and requisite documents, a claim to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- was passed and the same was paid to the insured Indian Oil Corporation on 19.02.2021 and no nothing is due to be paid. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.  No evidence on behalf of Ops has been led despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, the same was closed vide order dated 19.09.2023.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                          The facts regarding ownership of vehicle, purchasing of insurance policy (Annexure C2) by the complainant from the Ops, damage to the insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy and conducting of survey by the surveyor are need not to be discussed because the Ops have stressed that the claim of the complainant was rejected keeping in view the exclusion clause as the claimed damages do not fall under the purview of insurance. On the other hand, the damage to the insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy is proved because the surveyor in its report, produced by learned counsel for the Ops, during the course of arguments. In this very report, the surveyor has assessed the payable loss to the tune of Rs.28,901/-. It is worthwhile to mention here that the alleged incident took place during the subsistence of the policy, which has already been proved by the surveyor. From the act and conduct of the Ops/insurance company it appears that the insurance company in this way or that way wants to avoid/linger on the genuine claim of the complainant by raising this or that objections. The Ops have failed to produce the terms and conditions/exclusion clause of the insurance policy on the case file to satisfy this Commission the claimed damages do not fall within the purview of insurance. The insurance company is not supposed to earn profit/premium from the customer as it is its prime duty to indemnify the claim for the loss if causes during the subsistence of the policy.  It is a settled proposition of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside, being important piece of evidence, unless there is cogent and convincing evidence.  In this regard we rely upon a judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, CPJ 2008 (2) page (NC) page 182  wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is an independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.   Further, in the present matter, the surveyor in his report has clearly mentioned net loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.28901/-. Therefore,  we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would met if we direct the Ops to make the payment of            Rs.28901/- to the complainant as claim on account of damage of insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy because the surveyor in its report has not mentioned even a single word to the effect that as to what kind of misrepresentation, the complainant has made the Ops have failed to show that as to what kind of violation of the complainant has done.

5.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed to make the payment of Rs.28901/- (as per the report of surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. We further direct the Ops to pay Rs.11,000/- in lump sum for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days failing which the awarded amount would carry 12 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  The liability of the Ops would be joint and several.

6.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 23.04.2024

                  

          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                     (Rajbir Singh)                      Member                                 Member                               President