Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/181

Avneet kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI lombard - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 181/16

Avneet Kaur  W/o  Lakhminder Singh  R/o  24/54A ,    Tilak Nagar,  New Delhi-110018                                                        …….. Complainant

VERSUS

ICICI Lombard,  2^nd  & 3^rd  Floor,    Aggarwal Plaza Block B-1,Plot No. 4 Local Shopping  Centre,   Mini Market, Janak Puri,  New Delhi-110058.                                                     ....…. Opposite Party

       

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  had insured  its Honda Brio Car No. DL4CNC8706 registered in the name of complainant with OP and had filed two  claims  bearing  No. MOT05015450 and MOT05015496  of which one was for  the front  left side bumper  and right rear which got damaged  in one accident at Tilak Nagar Chowk  Delhi and another claim  pertained to  front  windshield replacement as it got  hit by the stone. These claims were filed with  OP on 02.11.2015 and on 18.11.2015.  The complainant got approval for front  windshield replacement and right  rear  damages only.  Because the complainant was not satisfied on the  aforesaid approval, therefore,  she wrote  e-mails to   know the reason as to why the claim for front  left bumper damages was not approved. After following up many times  OP gave lame  reply that there were previous damages on the left bumper that is  why not approved  the claim to the complainant.  The OP  committed deficiency  in service for which the complainant had to approach this Forum for redressal of  her grievances. She has  prayed for replacement of front windshield cost of  Rs.8,724/- which has been borne by her and also sought directions for OP to get rear side damages  repaired  and front bumper  repaired/replaced.  She has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/-  for physical strain and mental agony .

2.     OP appeared and filed reply  admitting the Insurance Policy of the car owned by the complainant but submitted that OP  never denied  the claim of the complainant  which was  found payable.  It has been  specifically stated  that complainant  had got  damage replaced/repaired  despite approval by OP.  The bumper was not processed for repair because  it came under normal tear and wear of the vehicle which was not covered  by the  policy.  It has been  further  submitted that  vide letter dated 06.01.2016 the complainant was  requested  to  report for the repair  with  Garage within seven days  but complainant did not produce the vehicle .  The complainant  without any justification  preferred to get the vehicle repaired from private repairer on much higher /inflated cost which  is against  policy condition.  It is prayed  that the complaint be dismissed. 

 

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Vikas Goyal, Manager-Legal  has filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P.  Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.

4.     We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.

5.     The dispute involved in the present case lies in a narrow campus. There is not much fuss  in this case because the factual  position stand  admitted by the  parties.  The policy  issued by OP is not  in dispute .  The damage to vehicle as  claimed by complainant  and damage of front  windshield are also not in dispute.  The only ground taken by OP is that despite approval by OP complainant  opted to get the vehicle  repaired on her own  and also there was  previous damage on bumper.  It is true that  the vehicle cannot be used in the absence of  front  windshield.  Since the matter was unnecessarily protracted  by OP the complainant was left with  no alternative but  to get  the front  windshield installed  by  private repairer.  There is no evidence  placed on record by OP as to what were the previous damages found  on bumper. Therefore, the denial  to repair  the bumper  was  also not justified. Looking into the contention of  OP we are of the considered opinion that the OP was in deficient  in getting the vehicle of complainant repaired.

6.     However  keeping  in view  the facts and circumstances  we are awarding  a sum of Rs. 8,724/-  being the cost  of front  windshield and Rs. 7500/- towards  repair of damage of rear side of the vehicle and front bumper  to the complainant.  We also award Rs. 5,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by complainant.

 Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

   File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this___09^th  ___ day of __August_______ 2018.

 

            ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                                            MEMBER