DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.342/21
Surinder Singh Luthra
S/o Late Shri Mulkh Raj Luthra
R/o H-35, 3rd Floor, Green Park
Extenstion, New Delhi-110016.
Also at:
R/o-2694, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. .…Complainant
VERSUS
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
First Floor, Uphaar Cinema Complex Sector-13
Greeen Park, New Delhi-110016.
ALSO AT:
3rd Floor Narain Manzil Barakhamba Road
Near Barakhmba Metro Station, Barakhmba
New Delhi-110001. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:29.11.2021
Date of Order :30.11.2023
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum deducted from the IDV of the vehicle No.DL-9CY5499 during settlement of the claim; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical agony; (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant was a registered owner of DL-9CY5499. The said vehicle was insured with OP for the period 04.04.2021 to 03.04.2022 vide policy No. 3001/218509489/00/000. The copy is enclosed as Annexure-3. the said vehicle met with an accident on National highway from Delhi to Amritsar at just before Panipat at 01.30pm. The driver was on the way to deliver the goods to his relative at Chandigarh. The scooty took the wrong turn and came in front of the said vehicle on 17.06.2021. As a result of which, the said vehicle was damaged heavily. The complainant had to get the said vehicle towed away to Magic Auto; Patpartganj, New Delhi via crane. M/s Magic Auto prepared estimated repair bill for Rs.8,86,018/-. The OP was duly informed. In turn, OP appointed the surveyor, Shri Mukesh Mehdiratta. The copy of the crane bill dated 17.06.2021 is enclosed herewith as Annexure-4. Copy of the estimated repair bill is also enclosed at Annexure-5. The official of OP also got recorded the statement of driver at his office on 15.07.2021, Shri Ishant Kharbanda, official of the OP sought certain clarification documents and picture of damaged vehicle etc. Shri Ishant Kharbanda also visited the site of accident alongwith driver on 04.08.2021. The other officials such as Vivek Mishra and Abhinav Verma also contacted complainant and sought details repeatedly. At each time, the documents were made available. The claim was raised vide No. MOT 1111455 WhatsApp chats also reflected the careless and reluctancy on behalf of officials of OP. Copies of chats on WhatsApp are enclosed as Annexure-10. The official of OP suggested for total loss of said vehicle on seeing the repair estimated bill. The claim remained pending since 17/18-06-2021 till 22.09.2021 despite many requests of the complainant.
After lot of efforts, the OP could settle the claim on 22.09.2021 for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- which is much lesser than the IDV of the said vehicle i.e.3,25,000/-. The deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- from IDV was illegal on the part of OP. The same amounts to deficiency on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising preliminary submissions and objections. It was maintained on behalf of OP that before accepting the payment from the OP-Insurance Company, the complainant had given consent letter dated 25.09.2021 which was duly notorised in the presence of two witnesses. The said consent letter clearly lays down that complainant will not demand/claim any further amount from the OP as he had accepted the money towards the full and final settlement. It was also stated vide its reply that it was a complete after thought of the complainant to gain undue advantage from the OP. The instant complaint was a totally disregard of the consent letter. The encashment of cheque amounted to full and final acceptance of the amount as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M/s Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs. UOI decided on25.05.2006. The Hon’ble NCDRC relying on findings of Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled in case of Smt. Laxmi Devi Kakhani Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. that “once the petitioner has received the amount unconditionally and has also got the cheque encashed, under these circumstances, petitioner cease to be ‘consumer’ as per CP Act, 1986. The privity of contract or relationship of consumer of and service provider accepted the refund unconditionally and also got the cheque encashed”.
The OP further relied on the cases of Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC) and D.N. Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 04.11.2011 and Shital Fibers Vs. Bharti Axa Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 04.07.2013, the Hon’ble NCDRC held that “Surveyor Report is an important document and cannot be wished aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary”. Like wise the above findings were held in Bhawn Kumar Vs. General Manager Varun Webres Ltd. & Anr 2008 (4) CPR 82 (NC).
OP had stated that in view of above facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint be dismissed out rightly.
Both the parties filed written submissions and evidence in affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Arguments were heard and concluded. The OP filed an application for placing on record the exhibits which finds mention in the evidence-in-affidavit. The application was allowed.
This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. Due consideration was given to the arguments. The primary grievance of the complainant is that the OP had deduced the amount of IDV by One Lakh. From the facts placed on record, it is noted that there is no sufficient cause to deduct the amount of IDV by Rs. One Lakh. The OP made the deduction in amount of IDV on the ground of the Survey-Report. But at the same time, the OP has not placed the survey report on record. This Commission feels that the survey report should have placed on record so as to form opinion. The OP has placed reliance heavily on the point that the complainant had accepted the claim amount and consent letter was also put forward by the complainant. In this way, the complainant has no reason to challenge the consent letter. To support its contention, the OP had mentioned the ratios of many judgments as discussed above.
The complainant had referred vide its complaint that in the event of total loss to the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/- IDV as mentioned insurance policy of the said vehicle amounts to violation of provision of General Regulation of Indian Motor Tariff 2002. To support its claim, the claimant has referred the below mentioned case. It was further stated that the IDV of the vehicle is to be fixed on the basis of manufacturer’s listed selling price of the brand and model as the vehicle proposed for insurance at the commencement of insurance/renewal and adjusted for depreciation. The complainant also placed on record the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Taxco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TATA AIG Gen. insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
After considering the facts and circumstances and discussion held above, this Commission is of the considered view that no deficiency can be fastened on the part of the OP in terms of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above. The complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit.
No order as to the costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
