DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.354/18
United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
D-13/3, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II
New Delhi-110020. .…Complainant
VERSUS
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
First Floor, S-13, Green Park
Uphar Cinema Complex
New Delhi-110016.
ICICI Lombard House
414, Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple
Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400025. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Bhuvnesh Sehgal for complainant.
Present: Adv. Garud M.V. for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:08.11.2018
Date of Order :25.06.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- towards compensation for loss and damages; Rs.2,00,000 for harassment and damage negligence cost to the complainant and Rs.50,000 towards litigation cost.
- Complainant purchased a car insurance policy for the period 30.01.2017 to 29.01.2018. As per the terms of the policy OP was to provide to the complainant zero depreciation, roadside assistance, key protect, loss of personal belongings as well as several add on services more specifically mentioned on the certificate of insurance company cum policy schedule.
- It is the case of the complainant that in May 2017, the vehicle somehow got damaged and complainant incurred the expenses regarding the repairing of the vehicle. Complainant informed the OP regarding the damage to the insured vehicle and in this regard, surveyor was appointed by the OP for inspection of the vehicle to assess the actual loss.
- It is the case of the complainant that the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle had given a go ahead to the workshop for repairing the insured vehicle and also asked for bills towards the cost of the repairing or requisite bills so that the claim could be processed.
- It is further stated that requisite bills and invoices of the work done in respect of the repairing of the insured vehicle was sent to the surveyor through Courier. Complainant thereafter on various occasions reminded the OP for the claim but no action was taken.
- On 01.09.2017 OP informed the complainant that the claim of the complainant had been rejected by stating that “your vehicle was dismantled before our initial inspection and not gave us any opportunity to assess the loss”.
- It is further stated that complainant aggrieved by rejection escalated its claim to stage 2 and stage 3 grievance officers but everything went in vain. It is stated that OP is liable for deficiency in service and also for fraud played by them on the complainant. It is stated that in rejecting the claim of the complainant unfair trade practice and deficiency of service is seen on the part of the OP.
- It is further stated that complainant left with no option had to get his vehicle repaired and paid a sum of Rs.1,07,000/-.
- In its reply, OP has stated that the vehicle in question was dismantled prior to initial inspection and hence the OP had repudiated the claim vide it's letter dated 01.09.2017. It is further stated that without prejudice, as per the surveyor appointed the loss was assessed as Rs 63,369/- and therefore the liability if any, of the OP is limited to Rs.63,369/-.
- OP has placed the estimated dated 15.05.2017 as annexure R 1. The survey report dated 15.06.2017 is annexed as annexure R4. OP has not denied that the survey was conducted. OP has also not denied the what’s app chat between the surveyor and the complainant.
- In its rejoinder, complainant has denied the averments of the OP made in its reply and have stated that no proof has been filed by the OP to prove that the vehicle was dismantled on 15.05.2019 and which amounts to violation of the condition of the policy. It is stated that vehicle was not dismantled and same is very much evident from the estimate dated 15.05.2017 issued by the garage. Surveyor was called on 16.05.2017 to inspect the vehicle so as to assess the actual loss. It is only for the first time on 01.09.2017 that the complainant was informed about the illegal action of the OP, till that time there was absolutely no whisper of any default by the complainant.
- It is stated that surveyor duly conducted the survey and gave a report with the preliminary amount of Rs.63,369/- and called upon the complainant to submit the final bills for their jobs conducted. It is nowhere mentioned in the report that the car was dismantled prior to inspection. It is stated that this is merely and after thought of the OP in order not to pay the rightful due of the complainant.
- Both the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and has heard the oral arguments.
- It is seen from the dates provided by the OP on record that the loss to the vehicle was caused on 13.05.2017, intimation to the OP was provided on 15.05.2017 and survey was conducted on 16.05.2017. OP has contended that the vehicle was dismantled on 15.05.2017 but the OP has not been able to prove this fact by placing any iota of evidence on record. The surveyor’s report does not refer about dismantling of the vehicle prior to his inspection. Also the pictures placed on record do not depict the vehicle to be dismantled. OP has not been able to prove the reason on the basis of which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. The report of the surveyor is dated 15.06.2017 in which the surveyor has allowed the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.63,367/- and the What’sApp chat placed on record by the complainant, it is seen that the surveyor has on 31.05.2017 sought more bills from the complainant. The message also states that reinspection of the vehicle was done which categorically means that inspection was definitely done and it nowhere states that the vehicle was dismantled before the inspection was done. Complainant on the other hand has placed on record bills detailed 26.05.2017, 27.05.2017, 30.05.2017 amounting to Rs.1,07,000/-.
This Commission is of the view that the OP has been deficient in its services by repudiating the claim of the complaint on a frivolous ground and therefore the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- as paid by the complainant towards the repair of his vehicle along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till it is paid. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment caused to the complainant on account of its deficiency.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
