Haryana

Karnal

CC/387/2022

Meenakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

22 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.387 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.11.07.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:22.04.2024

 

Meenaxi wife of Shri Parmit Kumar, daughter of Shri Ram Kumar at present resident of village Khera, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal-132041.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Interface Building no.16, 601/602, 6^th floor, New Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 through its authorized signatory.
2. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Fourth Parsavnath Capital Tower Bhai Veer Singh Marg, New Delhi 110001.
3. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, ICIC Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: None for complainant.

                    Shri A.K. Vohra, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of a Honda Activa bearing registration no.HR-75B-7279 and the same was got insured with the OPs, vide policy no.3005/224500145/00/B00, valid from 31.07.2021 to 30.07.2022. At the time of insurance, OPs told that the insurance policy is zero depth policy and if any kind of accident occurs and there is any loss to the Activa, OPs will pay the entire expenses of its repair. On 10.12.2021 in the morning, his brother namely Rohit was going from Indri towards Ladwa on the abovesaid Activa, when he reached near Khanpur, an unknown vehicle came on the wrong side. So, to save his life, his brother landed the Activa to the wrong side and due to the waste material on the road and big stones lying on the other side, the balance of the Activa got disturbed and met with an accident. Due to this incident, his brother suffered minor injuries and the Activa has also been badly damaged. The intimation regarding the said accident was given to the OPs. On receipt of intimation, surveyor inspected the vehicle. On the assurance of the Surveyor, his brother got done the repair of the vehicle and spent Rs.22491/-. It is further alleged that when complainant checked the Activa at home, the Digi was still broken and parts of the rear tire were also missing. Thereafter, complainant contacted the surveyor of the OPs several times and requested to settle the claim. The surveyor of the OPs assured the complainant that her claim will be passed as soon as possible. Complainant also told the surveyor that there are still some defects in the vehicle and requested to rectified the same, then surveyor told that it cannot be rectified because final bill has been prepared. On 03.03.2022, OPs deposited an amount of Rs.16709/- in the account of complainant whereas complainant spent Rs.22491/- on the repair of the Activa, when complainant asked about the less amount from the surveyor of the OPs,  surveyor of the OPs lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and no satisfactory reply was given. The insurance policy was a zero dept policy and the entire amount is payable. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times to pay the remaining amount but OPs did not bother to request of complainant and lastly refused to pay the remaining amount. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs have paid the claim of the complainant amounting to Rs.16709/- as assessed by their IRDA approved Surveyor in his report. The complainant also accepted the said amount without any protest. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank passbook Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice Ex.C2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C3, copy of aadhar card Ex.C4 and cosed the evidence on 25.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Divyam Suri Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 11.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that none has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. The position remained the same on the last two adjourned dates.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             In the complaint, complainant has alleged that she got insured her Activa with the OP. On 10.12.2021, the said vehicle was met with an accident and was badly damaged. She has spent Rs.22,491/- on the repair of the vehicle but OPs have paid only Rs.16709/-. The policy was a zero depreciation policy, hence complainant is entitled for remaining amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OPs have already paid an amount Rs.16709/- as loss assessed by IRDA approved Surveyor to the complainant and complainant also accepted the said amount without any protest and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that OPs have already transferred Rs.16709/- in the account of complainant. It is also admitted that the policy in question was zero depth policy.

11.           OPs have alleged that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.16709/-. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. During the course of evidence, neither affidavit of said Surveyor nor his report has been tendered by the OPs. Except affidavit of representative of OP Ex.OP1/A, there is nothing on the file to prove the version of the OPs. As per the insurance policy Ex.C3, the policy is Zero Depreciation policy. Thus, the abovesaid deduction made by the OPs is not justified. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while deducting the amount of Rs.5782/-(Rs.22491-16709), therefore, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

12.           Furthermore, the written version filed by the OPs is only signed by the counsel and same has not been signed by the  OPs. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-

14. Pleading to be signed:- 

Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any):

Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf.  

 

                  Since the written version has not been signed by the party itself, thus the written version cannot be considered.   

13.           In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.5782/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount will not paid to the complainant within stipulated period then abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:22.04.2024 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh) 

                            Member                             Member