Haryana

Ambala

CC/234/2014

ABHISHEK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

             Complaint Case No.    :  234 of 2014

Date of Institution       :  01.09.2014

            Date of Decision         :   12.08.2016

 

Abhishek Kumar Pandey, SMQ 112/5 DE Race Course Ambala Cantonment-133001 ( Haryana).

                                                                                                ……Complainant.

                                                                                 Versus

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Triloki Chambers, Ist Floor, SCO 4307/4/21 Opp. Municipal Council, Ambala Cantt- 133001.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.            

Present:          Complainant  in person.

                        Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. counsel for Op.

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that he got  insured his car bearing  regn. No.HR01Z/8824 from Op insurance company vide policy No.3001/87275028/00/B00 effective from 05.02.2014 to 04.02.2015 and the said car met with an accident on 04.07.2014 but Road Side Assistance was not provided by the Op company inspite of call made my complainant though premium for the same amounting to Rs.99/- under the particular head was  charged by the OP company.  Complainant further alleged that Op wrongly added clause of voluntary deductibles of Rs.2500/- in the policy by false representation and misleading fact apart from Rs.1000/- as compulsory deductibles and thus wrongly deducted Rs.2500/- from the claim amount of insured vehicle.  This act & conduct of Op is  a clear cut deficiency in service  as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been preferred by the complainant before the Forum.

2.                     Upon notice, Op appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and concealment of true facts from the Hon’ble Forum.  On merits, it has been urged that the OP company does not provide any Road Side Assistance as  alleged rather the answering OP only deals with the insurance of vehicle, health insurance etc. and follows the guidelines and norms issued by IRDA.  It  has been further submitted by the OP that  complainant has submitted the claim regarding his car no.HR01Z/8824  stating that an accident took place on 04.06.2014, so, Sh. Jatin Arora Surveyor, Loss assessor  and Valuer  was  appointed to investigate the matter who assessed loss to the tune of Rs.29396/- and  thus the answering OP who was having cashless facilities for the prospective customers and having  tie up with Modern Automobile paid the claim amount to the authorized agency and nothing is due of the complainant towards the answering Op and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the Op. Thus a prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost has been made.

3.                     To prove his contention, complainant tendered  his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jatin Arora as Annexures RX   alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard the parties to the complaint & perused the records of case carefully.  At the very outset, it is admitted fact on record that  the vehicle in question was insured with OP insurance company  on the day of occurrence.  The main grouse of the complainant is that OP insurance company has charged Rs.99/- from him for Road Side Assistance but on the day of occurrence i..e 04.06.2014, the Op did not provide him any assistance despite intimating them on their call centre no.18002666.  Perusal of policy document (Annexure C-1) reveals that OP insurance company has charged a sum of Rs.6710/- from the complainant for  insurance of his vehicle bearing regn. No.HR01-Z-8824 which includes premium of Rs.99/- for Road  Side Assistance but on the contrary to it,  the Op has urged in para no.3(i) of their written statement  that “The Op company does not provide any roadside assistance  as the answering Op only deals with the insurance of vehicle, health insurance etc. and always follows the guidelines and norms issued by IRDA”.  It is very astonishing to us that on one side, the Op insurance company is charging  premium for providing  Road Side Assistance at the site of accident from the complainant whereas on the other side, they are submitting that their company do not provide any road side assistance though complainant has placed on record policy detailing terms & conditions for Road Side Assistance ( Annexure C-2) issued by Op company to the complainant wherein it has been specifically mentioned as under:-

‘Towing on breakdown/Accident: in the event of the insured’s vehicle being immobilized or rendered unfit for the purpose of driving on the road, the company would provide appropriate towing services to the nearest garage (within a radius of 50 kms from the location of the breakdown/accident), provided always that any charges for a distance beyond the one mentioned herein shall be borne by the insured.

Xxxxxxxx etc. etc.

 So, This act & conduct of OP insurance company is a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.  As such, we have no hesitation in holding that Op remained negligent & deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as per terms of the policy especially when for this purpose they have charged premium from the complainant.  Further the second contention raised by the complainant qua adding of voluntary deductible clause  in the policy is not tenable as the complainant never raised such objection at the time of issuance of policy rather  he opted for the same against a reduction in premium of Rs.750/- under Section 1 of the policy as specified in the schedule of policy ( Annexure R-3) placed on record by OP. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within a period of thirty days from the communication of this order: -

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment & mental agony suffered by him at the site of accident near Shahbad due to non-providing of Road Side Assistance by Op though permissible as per policy.
2. And to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages for violating  the terms of policy/IRDA rules & regulations etc.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                                    Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract further simple interest @ 9 % per annum for the period of default. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED: 12.08.2016                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

 

                                                                                                                Sd/-

               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER