Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/126/2023

HARPARTAP SINGH KAIRON - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/126/2023
Date of Institution	:	6.3.2023
Date of Decision	:	4/12/2023

 

Harpartap Singh Kairon son of Sh. Gurinder Singh r/o House No.2358, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, The Statement, Plot No 149, 4^th floor, Industrial Area next to Hometel Hotel, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	Shri suresh kumar sardana	member

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv. for complainant
	:	None for OP

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is registered owner of Mercedes car bearing registration No. HP-38-F-9799 ( Copy of RC is Annexure C-1) (hereinafter referred to as subject car)  and got the same insured with the OP w.e.f. 31.8.2019 to 30.8.2020, 31.8.2020 to 30.8.2021 and from 9.12.2021 to 8.12.2022 vide policies  Annexure C-2 to C-4.  On 30.6.2022 when Sh. Sukdhdev Singh who was having valid driving license was driving the subject car,  the same had struck with ditch on the road and footpath from front left side as a result to which the car was damaged.  Due information about the said accident was given to the OP and on the direction of OP the complainant had taken the subject car to an authorized repairer i.e. Dhiman Motors SAS Nagar, Mohali. The OP deputed a surveyor to assess the loss who accordingly assessed the loss by inspecting the subject car to the tune of Rs.86,051/-  vide his report Annexure C-8. However, the repairer of the subject car had raised the bill of Rs.89,050/-,vide repair bill Annexure C-6. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the OP for his claim, the complainant was shocked to know that his claim was repudiated by the OP  vide repudiation letter dated 9.8.2022 (Annexure C-7) on frivolous grounds. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its  alleging  that in fact the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the answering OP on the basis of misrepresentation of fats on 9.8.2022. It is further alleged that due to the misrepresentation of the facts by the complainant, he is not entitled for any relief from this Commission. It is averred that the policies are issued on the basis of utmost good faith with regard to the information provided..  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested

2. In order to prove his case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully..
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties  that the complainant is registered owner of the subject as is also evident from Annexure C-1 and further that the subject car was insured with the OP at the relevant time i.e. on the date of accident as is also evident from Annexure C-4 copy of policy, which indicates that the subject car was insured w.e.f. 9.12.2021 to 8.12.2022  and also  that the repairer had raised a bill Annexure C-6 for the repair of the subject car to the tune of Rs.89,050/-  whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.86051/- vide report Annexure C-8, and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 9.8.2022 as is evident from Annexure C-7, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on false ground and the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for.
   2. The repudiation letter Annexure C-7 clearly indicates that the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the  following ground:-

“Misrepresentation of facts (causes of loss not justified with existing damages on vehicle and try to hide material facts about loss)”

 

3. However, the perusal of this  repudiation letter clearly  indicates that the OP has not explained the details qua the hiding of material facts by the complainant about the loss, rather it is mentioned in the repudiation letter by the OP that   complainant has misrepresented  the facts. The Surveyor report Annexure C-8 submitted by the surveyor, admittedly deputed by the OP explains the details of the manner in which the subject car met with an accident and on inspection of the subject car, damage to the subject car was found and further he found the registration certificate as well as driving license of the driver  in order during  the survey and nothing has been pointed out by the surveyor that there was any misrepresentation of the fact by the complainant as alleged in the repudiation letter. Thus, it is safe to hold that the OP has repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant without any reason in a very casual manner and the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part, especially when the surveyor has submitted in his surveyor report Annexure C-8 the details of the loss found by him in the subject car while conducting the survey.  Even otherwise, entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. So far as the quantum of the loss is concerned, though the complainant has brought on record the bill Annexure C-6 issued by the repairer  but  the surveyor has assessed the loss minus salvage value to the tune of Rs.86,051/-, hence, the surveyor report cannot be ignored.  Thus, the complainant is held entitled for Rs.86,051/-, as assessed by the surveyor.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is  directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹86,051/-/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 9.8.2022  till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her/him/them;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced  4/12/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member