Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/281/2020

Manoj Siwach - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Suraj Kiran

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.281 of 2020.               Date of Instt.:29.10.2020 Date of Order: 05.12.2023.

Manoj Siwach son of Manpal Singh resident of H.No.615, Village Gorakhpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.ICICI Lombard House, 14 Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025 through its Dirctor/M.D.

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Unit No.5F-7,5F-8, Fifth Floor, Metropolis Mall, Delhi Road, Opp. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Divisional Manager.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

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

Present:       Sh.Suraj Kiran Garhwal,Advocate for the complainant.                               Sh.U.K.Gera, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that he got his vehicle Volkswaen Polo 1.5 Car bearing registration No.HR22L/1338 insured with OPs vide policy No.3001/193573124/00/B00 (Zero Dep.) having validity for the period 14.02.2020 to 13.02.2021; that on 27.05.2020 the vehicle in question met with an accident; that the complainant intimated about the accident to the insurance company; that the surveyor inspected the vehicle  and also clicked the photographs of the damaged vehicle;  that  as per the instructions of the surveyor, the complainant took the estimate from A.S.Modern Auto Mobiles, Gorakhpur, Tehsil & District Fatehabad  and submitted the same with the Ops alongwith other relevant documents; that the complainant got his vehicle repaired and made the payment of Rs.3,20,309/-; that the complainant requested the Ops for the settlement of the claim but the Ops intimated that claim No.MOT09905152 cannot be settled; that the complainant kept on requesting the Ops besides serving legal notice upon them to make the payment but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed its reply wherein preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal and compliant being false and frivolous have been taken. It has been further submitted that the claim of the complainant has not been closed as the documents were not provided by the complainant; that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground that it was observed that causes of loss not justified with existing loss. There is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. In the end, prayer for dismissing the complaint has been made. No evidence on behalf of Ops have been led despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, there evidence was closed by the order of the Commission on 18.04.2023.  

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 C6) 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 gave stressed on the ground that the complainant did not submit the need documents and the cause of loss does not justify the existing loss, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected.  There is nothing on the case file to show that any document was ever demanded from the complainant and as to on what basis the Ops concluded that the cause of loss was not justified with the existing loss. Undisputedly, 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, has assessed the net payable loss to the tune of Rs.2,26,860/-. From the act and conduct of the Op/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 quarries as made in the present complaint.  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.2,26,860/-. 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.2,26,860/- to the complainant as claim on account of damage of insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy

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.2,26,860/- (as per the report of surveyor) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % 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 9 % interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

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: 05.12.2023

                  

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