Punjab

Patiala

CC/16/488

Kanwaljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Shivin sharma

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 488 of 15.12.2016

                                                            Decided on:       26/10/2018

 

Kawaljit Singh aged about 42 years S/o S. Bhagwant Singh R/o 932/3, Khalsa Mohall, near Dharampura Bazar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant 

                                      Versus

1.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1242/3, Khalsa Street, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala through its Manager.

2.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Sarvarkar Marg, Near Siddihi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 through its Manager.

3.       Hira Automobile Ltd., Authorized Dealer Maruti Suzuki Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its M.D.     

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member         

 

ARGUED BY                                 

                   Sh. Shivin Sharma  Adv. counsel for the complainant           Sh. Dhiraj Puri  Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 2                           Sh. Mukesh Garg  Adv. counsel for OP No.3

 

                                     

 ORDER

                                    SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1.       Kanwaljit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has filed this complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. & ors.(hereinafter referred to as the OPs).

2.       Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a car make Alto K10 from Hira Automobiles Ltd., Patiala (OP No.3) on 25.5.2015 for Rs.3,37,975.83/-. He got it insured from OP no.1 on the instructions of OP no.3 vide policy No.3001/M1-02803862/00/000,on payment of Rs.15,214/-.The car was got registered with the office of DTO, Patiala vide registration No.PB-11-BS-8549.

3.       On 17.4.2016, at about 4:00PM, complainant was going from Patiala to Ludhiana. Near Sport King factory, Doraha, a stray animal came on the road. The complainant tried to save the animal and applied brakes.The car turned upside down. It was totally damaged. Complainant and his son also received injuries and they were got admitted in hospital. After recovery from injuries, on 25.6.2016, complainant took the car to Libra Auto Company Limited, Ludhiana for repair. Intimation was given to the insurance company and company appointed surveyor namely Mr. Sethi. The surveyor  ( Mr. Sethi) told the complainant after checking that it is a case of total loss. The condition of the car is not repairable.           After 15 days, surveyor told and made estimate of Rs.1,57,358/-. The surveyor demanded commission from the complainant and due to this reason he  passed the loss of this amount instead of total loss. The complainant got the car repaired from Libra Autos, Ludhiana and said workshop handed over the car as fit for driving. Complainant took the car back home to Patiala. On the way, the car started giving trouble in the form of bubbling. He took the car to Hira Autos Limited, workshop and came to know from their expert Charanjit Singh that supports rods of the car are wrongly fitted. The condition of the car was not fit for driving on the road.

4.       It is alleged that the complainant is suffering from monetary loss due to deficiency in service and mal practice of the OPs. For these sufferings he has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.5 lac. Complainant also claimed litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-.Hence this complaint.

5.       Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel. OPs No.1&2 filed joint written reply. They have raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The OPs have already paid claim of Rs.1,47,490/- in full and final settlement. Nothing is due against the OPs. The complainant has filed the complaint on wrong and false facts. The OPs are dragged into unnecessary litigation. Complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant has not impleaded Libra Auto Company Limited, Ludhiana from whom he got the vehicle repaired.That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. As per allegations there is defect in repairing the vehicle got repaired from Libra Auto Company Limited, Ludhiana. That complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature. It has been filed to injure the interest and reputation of OPs. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and lastly that the complainant has no locus standi  and cause of action to file the complaint.

6.       On merits, insurance of the vehicle is not denied. It is pleaded that the OPs got information regarding loss on 17.4.2016. After getting intimation, the OPs appointed Er.Rahul Sethi, Surveyor and Loss assessor, for assessing the loss caused to the vehicle. On 21.4.2016, surveyor visited Hira Automobiles Co. Ltd. for assessing loss caused to the vehicle and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,47,490/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The vehicle was got repaired by the complainant .Thereafter the amount was duly paid to the repairer. It is denied that the vehicle was declared total loss. It is further mentioned that the complainant submitted estimate of Rs.1,05,018/- for parts and Rs.55,075/- for labour charges, totaling Rs.1,60,093/-.The IDV of the car was Rs.3,42,072/-. There was no occasion to declare the vehicle as total loss. Final repair bills amounting to Rs.1,57,358/- were submitted. After deducting the excess clause, salvage and consumable parts , an amount of Rs.1,47,490/- was paid to the repairer .All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.       OP No.3 has raised Legal objections, similar to the objections  raised by OPs No.1&2. On merits also OP no.3 has denied all the averments and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

8.       Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.

9.       In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of invoice regarding purchase of the vehicle, Ex.C1, copy of policy schedule, Ex.C2, copy of certificate of registration, Ex.C3, copy of DDR, Ex.C4, copy of  discharge advice, Ex.C5,,Ex.C6, photographs, Exs.C7,C8, copy of legal notice, Ex.C9 and postal receipt,Ex.C10,

10.     The OPs No.1&2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms.Vidhi Passi, Ex.OPB, copy of original policy, Ex.OP2, OP3.

11.     OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Gill, Ex.OPA, copy of resolution, Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

12.     Complainant also filed the written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

13.     Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant got his car insured with OPs No.1&2. Car met with an accident.  OPs appointed surveyor Rahul Sethi. Originally Rahul Sethi assured for full payment. Ex.C8 proves this fact. But subsequently he  reduced the loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,358/-. When the surveyor has assured for full payment, he cannot reduce the amount subsequently. Therefore, this fact itself prove unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

14.        On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has submitted that there is no report by the surveyor to entitle the complainant for full payment. In complaint, the complainant himself pleaded that he got the car repaired from Libra Auto Company Limited, Ludhiana. This fact, itself proves that the vehicle was repairable. It is not the case of the complainant that he had paid more amount than  assessed by the surveyor. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs.

15.       The ld. counsel for OP no.3 has submitted that no deficiency is alleged against it. It has been unnecessary dragged into litigation.

16.       We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

17.       The admitted facts are that the complainant got his car insured with the OPs w.e.f. 25.5.2015. The car met with an accident on 17.4.2016 i.e. within covered period. The OPs appointed surveyor. As per complainant the surveyor assured for full payment and subsequently he has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,57,358/-. Therefore, only controversy involved in this case is as to whether it was a case of total loss or loss for Rs.1,53,358/-.

18.     Reliance of the complainant is only upon Ex.C8. It is not a proper report. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to this document. Moreover, in case of total loss, the presumption was that the vehicle is beyond repair or its cost of repair is more than 75% of the IDV.

          Complainant has got the vehicle repaired from Libra Auto Company Limited, Ludhiana and OPs have paid sum of Rs.1,47,490/- to the repairer. It is also not the case of the complainant that he has to spent any extra amount from his pocket.

19.     In these circumstances, the version of the complainant that it is a case of total loss is not proved.

20.     For the reasons recorded above the complaint is without merit and stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:  26/10/2018   

 

 Kanwaljeet Singh                   Neelam Gupta             M. P. Singh Pahwa

              Member                            Member                              President