ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:06.02.2010 Date of Order:23.09.2010 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 262 OF 2010 Mr. N.A. Girish, S/o late Anand, R/at Vaderahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Complainant V/S 1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Corporate office at Zenith House Keshaarao Khodye Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai34. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Branch office at ICICI Bank Tower, No.1 Commissariat Road, Bangalore-25. Opposite parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-04-MD-9105. The vehicle had met with an accident on 26-5-2009 and complete damage. The vehicle is insured with the opposite party the effective date of policy was from 6-5-2009 to 5-5-2010. The complainant requested to settle the claim. The opposite party called upon the complainant to deposit the additional premium amount of Rs.8,503/- The opposite party after collecting the said amount had issued amended policy. Inspite of several requests the claim is not settled. Hence, the complaint, claiming sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the value of the vehicle and compensation. 2. The opposite party has filed defense version, admitting that the vehicle was insured and the liability is as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party appointed investigator and surveyor to assess the loss caused to the car. At the time of obtaining the policy from the opposite party the complainant misrepresented stating that he is not claiming any amount in the earlier policy, therefore, he is entitled to get no claim bonus. But, as per the verification he has made claim, therefore, the claim has been repudiated by the opposite party. The surveyor had assess the damage caused to the vehicle on repair basis on a sum of Rs.3,72,486/- In order to get no claim bonus though the complainant is not entitled as per the terms of the policy. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. The opposite party further submitted that the sum assured is Rs.4,43,135/- as per the policy the liability of the opposite party if any is limited to the loss assessed by the surveyor. For all the reasons stated above the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. Perused the documents and pleadings. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per the survey report? 3. What order and relief? REASONS 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-MD-9105 had insured the vehicle with the opposite party. The opposite party had issued Private Car Package policy certificate cum policy schedule as per the policy produced by the complainant. As per the policy period of insurance was from 6-5-2009 to 5-5-2010. The total Insured value is Rs.4,43,135/-. The complainant has paid premium amount of Rs.6,502/- , bonus of Rs.2,001/- is given to the complainant. The complainant has produced copy of RC, FIR and complaint. The vehicle met with an accident on 26-5-2009 and it was damaged in the said accident. The opposite party had issued endorsement schedule of Private Car Package Policy on 2-7-2009 to the complainant. After collecting Rs.2,207/- from the complainant under receipt dated 2-7-2009. As per this package policy the period of insurance mentioned is 6-5-2009 to midnight on 5-5-2010. It has been stated in the policy as under Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy, it is hereby declared and agreed that the policy stands amended for the reasons given below: Endorsement wording: Change of No Claim Bonus As per this endorsement the opposite party collected Bonus discount amount from the complainant and had issued amended policy and the date of insurance was from 6-5-2009 to 5-5-2010. Admittedly, the amended policy came into force from the date of original policy. Even under the Civil Law if any amendment takes place to the pleadings for ex: Plaint or Written statement and the courts permits to amend the pleadings of the parties. The said amendment comes into effect from the date of original pleading i.e., Plaint or Written statement. In this way the opposite party after taking the amount from the complainant had issued amended policy and endorsement to the complainant. Therefore, now the opposite party can not deny admitting the claim on the ground that the complainant had taken the benefit of No Claim Bonus. In view of receipt of additional amount from the complainant it is clear that the complainant was not given benefit of No Claim Bonus. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the defense taken by the opposite party. Admittedly the vehicle met with accident on 26-5-2009 during the effective policy period. The opposite party had appointed surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor appointed by the opposite party himself had assessed the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,72,486/- and survey report submitted by the opposite party and this fact has been clearly admitted by the op in the defense version. The opposite party could have given amount as per the survey report to the complainant, though not the sum insured or amount claimed by the complainant. The opposite party has submitted that the liability if any is limited to the loss assessed by the surveyor. This submission of opposite party is correct. The opposite party is right in taking this defense. The liability of the opposite party definitely is limited to the loss assessed by the surveyor. The complainant is not entitled the amount claimed by him in law. The opposite party has submitted a unreported copy of judgment of NCDRC, I have gone through that judgment even though it is not certified judgment. But, the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. In TATA AIG General Insurance co., vs Gulzari Singh case the insurance company had not issued amended policy after collecting the required amount from the party. But in this case the opposite party had collected the amount from the complainant and had issued amended policy and endorsement which clearly stated that Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy, it is hereby declared and agreed that the policy stands amended. So, under this circumstances the unreported judgment relied on by opposite party will not help in any manner to the opposite party. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances and documents I am of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is not justified and proper. The complainant is being a consumer under the CP Act, the enactment is being a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers. Therefore, the opposite party shall have to be directed to pay the amount as per the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. Repudiation of the law full claim amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.3,72,486/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order the said amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realization. 7. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the present proceedings to the complainant. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
