West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/75/2010

Tapas Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

18 Oct 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No. 75/2010                                              Date of disposal: 18/10/2012                               

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                     MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                     MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. G. Dey. Advocate.

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. P. Sengupta & Mr. B Raj. Advocate.

Tapas Mandal S/o-Purna Chandra Mandal, Vill-Kasba Asanda, P.O.-Lal Nagar, P.S.-Belda, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Office Zenith House,   

        Keshovdeo Khade Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,  APJ House, 7th floor, Block-D, 15 Park Street, Kolkata-700016
3. Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Maruti Dealer, Bhandari Buliding, Jhapetapur, Kharagpur,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
4. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Belda Branch, at P.O. & P.S.-Belda, Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………………..Ops.

                        The complainant’s main contention in this case is that he purchased a Maruti Omni Van for his personal use taking financial help from the Op No.4 State Bank of India, Belda Branch.  The said vehicle was registered with the Motor Vehicles Department of Paschim Medinipur bearing No.WB-34T-9461.  The said vehicle was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited having insurance coverage from 24/6/2009, till the midnight of 23/6/10.  But on 08/12/2009 while the complainant was going to Dantan from Belda and the driver of the vehicle was driving at a moderate speed, at about 11.30 p.m. on national highway-60 the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged heavily.  The accident was reported to the local police station and accordingly a police case was started.  The complainant took the vehicle to the Op No.3 for repairing purpose when the Op No.3 gave an estimate of Rs.1,92,175/- (One lakh, ninety two thousand, one hundred seventy five) for repairing.    

Contd………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Thereafter, the complainant submitted insurance claim to the Op Nos.1&2 as per the terms and conditions of the policy but by letter dated 11/3/10 the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that on the date of time an accident the vehicle was used on hire which was not covered by the insurance policy. Thereafter, the complainant sent notice to the Insurance Company through his Ld. Advocate asking the Insurance Company to settle the claim but to no effect.

The case was heard and decided by this Forum ex-parte on 31/8/10.  This Forum allowed the claim of the complainant and directed the insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,92,175/- (One lakh, ninety two thousand, one hundred seventy five) within a specified period.  This Forum further directed the Op-Insurance Company to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) within certain period.  Having been aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed by this Forum the Op-Insurance Company Nos.1&2 moved in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and by the judgement passed on 24/8/11, the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to set aside the ex-parte judgement passed by this Forum and sent back the case on remand to this Forum for hearing afresh  after compliance of the formalities and the directions as given in the judgement and in accordance with law.  Thereafter, the Op-Insurance Company Nos.1&2 filed W/O.  After the case was sent back on remand by the Hon’ble State Commission on prayer of the complainant the Op No.4 State Bank of India, Belda Branch was impleded as party in this case.  The Op-Insurance Company Nos.1&2 and the Op No.4 contested the case by filing separate W/Os.  The Op No.3 did not contest the case.  The Op-Insurance Company 1&2 in their W/O specifically contended that after the intimation of accident of the vehicle in question an inquiry was made initially by Mr. Chanchal Biswas, Insurance surveyor and loss assessors who submitted preliminary report  after examination external damage.  Thereafter, final survey was made by Mr. Biplab Basu surveyor and loss assessor who found after collecting information during investigation that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose by the complainant who had two other vehicles which were also used for commercial purpose.  The Op-Insurance Company 1&2 also contended that on the date of time an accident the vehicle was put on hire which was beyond the conditions of Insurance Policy and thus the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were violated by the complainant for which the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11/3/10.  So, the Op-Insurance company Nos.1&2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

The Op No.4 State Bank of India, Belda Branch in its W/O contended, inter alia, that the complainant purchased the Maruti Omni Van after taking loan from Op and he used to repay the installment but a portion of the loan still remain unpaid.  The Op No.4 also admitted the incident of an accident and made counter claim to the effect that any compensation if awarded in  

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

the instant case, should be deposited in the loan account of the complainant lying with the Op No.4.

   It is now to be considered by us as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount of estimated cost of repair of the vehicle and the compensation as claimed and that, whether the Op No.4 is entitled to get the amount of compensation deposited in the loan account of the complainant which is lying with the Op No.4.

Decisions with Reasons:

Admitted position in this case is that the Maruti Omni Van having registration No. WB- 34T-9461 belongs to the complainant which he purchased with the financial assistance of the Op No.4.  It is also admitted that the said vehicle was insured with the Op-Insurance Company.  It is not disputed in this case that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 08/12/2009 causing serious damage of the vehicle.

The main contention of the Op-Insurance Company is that the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant for commercial purpose alongwith some other vehicles and on the date and time of accident also the vehicle was plying on hire. The complainant has not filed any sort of evidence to controvert such statement to the Op-Insurance Company.  It is alleged that the complainant obtained an estimate from the Op No.3 for the purpose of repairing of the vehicle and the estimated amount was Rs.1,92,175/- (One lakh, ninety two thousand, one hundred seventy five).  The complainant is said to have made claim of such amount to the Op-Insurance Company for the purpose of repair of the vehicle.  The Op-Insurance Company contended that his surveyor estimated the case of repairing for the vehicle at Rs.1,55,000/- (One lakh and fifty five thousand).  During hearing Ld. Lawyer for the Op-Insurance Company gave much stress on the point that on the basis of estimate and without repairing to vehicle the complainant cannot get any amount towards insurance claim.  The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that until and unless, the complainant gets the money from the Op-Insurance Company, he is not in a position to get the vehicle repaired. So, it becomes an admitted position that the vehicle has not yet been repaired and the claim in this case has been made only on the basis of estimate.  Therefore, we are to consider now as to whether the claim of the complainant can be acceded to.

We find from the judgement of the Hon’ble State Commission by which this case was    sent back on remand to this Forum that the Hon’ble State Commission has clearly observed that,         Moreover admittedly the Complainant lodged the claim before the Insurance to the tune of Rs.1,92,175/- (One lakh, ninety two thousand, one hundred seventy five) as per estimation of the Automobile Company towards repairing.  In this respect we are of the opinion that from such submission of the Complainant it is clear that till filing of this complaint or lodgment of the claim the vehicle has not been repaired by the said company.  The company after assessing the

Contd………….P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

damage has estimated the above mentioned amount towards repairing of the vehicle.  But until and unless it is repaired by the repairing company and issued a voucher stating the cost of the repair as well as the said voucher/payment receipt/receipt is produced before the Insurance Company along with the claim form, the Insurance Company is not under any obligation to decide the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, in our view the case is a premature one.

The position has not been changed up-till-now. The vehicle has not been repaired. Still now, the claim remains on the basis of the estimate.  Needless to say that the claim relating to reimbursements of the amount of expenditure under the insurance policy can only be made after the vehicle is repaired and proper receipt/voucher is produced before the Insurance Company.  On these grounds the Hon’ble state Commission has already held the case to be premature.  We have already found that there has not been any change or circumstances after the case was received on remand by this Forum.  Therefore, the case still remains pre-mature.  Moreover, in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble State Commission the Op. No-l Insurance Company filed the surveyors’ report but the complainant did not choose to cross examination the surveyor.  Even the report of the surveyor was not assailed during hearing and not a single word against the said report was said by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant.

It is true that the surveyor of the Op-Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.1,55,000/- (One lakh and Fifty five thousand) but at the same time the surveyor also mentioned in the report that the same is issued without prejudice and subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

              Be that as it may, since there is no receipt/voucher showing payment of cost of repair of the vehicle in question to the repairer, we are to the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount on the basis of the estimate only.

 Accordingly the case of the complainant should fail.

                         Hence it is,

                                           Ordered

                                                            that the complaint case no.75/2010 stands dismissed but considering the circumstance, without cost.         

Dic. & Corrected by me.

                                                     I agree                  I agree.                          

              

         President                            Member                Member                              President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur.