Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/101/2019

V.P.Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.101 of 2019

Date of Instt.:18.03.2019

Date of Decision: 02.02.2021.

 

Sh.V.P.Singh, aged 61 years, son of Sh.Sodan Singh, resident of House No.1406. Sector -13. U.E.Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD. Green Park, New Delhi through its area Manager (Claim),Sh.Vivek Chandra.

 

 

                ….…Opposite party.

 

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri N.K.Jain Advocate for the complainant.   

Shri Mohit Goel, Advocate for the opposite party.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant V.P.Singh against ICICI LOMBARD GIC LIMITED, the opposite party.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a Senior Citizen and resident of the address as mentioned in the head note of this order and he is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL12CA-6992. It is averred that said vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP for the period 31.3.2018 to 30.3.2019.  It is averred that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 17.01.2019  in  the area of Rewari Town, Haryana. The vehicle was hit by iron rod being carried in a tractor and then it was hit by a bike from behind and the vehicle of the complainant was damaged.  The vehicle was given  for repairs with Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Okhla Industrial area New Delhi on 21.01.2019 and rough estimate for repairs was prepared after getting due approval  and verification  alongwith photographs by the surveyor appointed by the OP.  The vehicle was repaired and claim of Rs.19222/- was filed by the Garriage of the company i.e. Concept Automobiles, New Delhi.  However, OP has transferred the amount  of Rs.13020/- only  and Rs.7202/- were paid less by the OP. It is also stated that Rs.3000/- were charged as file charges instead of Rs.2000/-, It is averred that the complainant had paid the sum of Rs.30031/- as premium and the OP was liable to pay the entire expenditure incurred by the complainant on the repair of the vehicle and making less payment of the claim despite request and  service of legal notice amounts  to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to pay  the remaining claim of Rs.7202/- and Rs.1000/- charged from the complainant in excess for file charges alongwith interest  from 13.02.2019 i.e. date of legal notice till realization.

 

3.             Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Issuance of the insurance policy by the OP to the vehicle of the complainant is stated to be a matter of record. It is submitted that upon getting the information of the accident, the OP has appointed their IRDA Approved Surveyor to assess the actual loss pertaining to vehicle. The Surveyor submitted his report to the company and based on that report the answering OP paid the claim amount to the complainant. While denying all other allegations made in the complaint, preliminary objections have been raised that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint; that complicated  and complex question of fact is involved in the present complaint and said complaint can only be decided by the civil court and that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit
Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his e evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed its evidence.

6.            The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that he  is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL12CA-6992 and said vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP  for the period 31.3.2018 to 30.3.2019.  He further argued  that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 17.01.2019  in  the area of Rewari Town, Haryana and the vehicle of the complainant was damaged.  The vehicle was given  for repairs with Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Okhla Industrial area New Delhi on 21.01.2019 and rough estimate for repairs was prepared after getting due approval  and verification  alongwith photographs by the surveyor appointed by the OP.  The vehicle was repaired and claim of Rs.19222/- was filed by the Garage of the company i.e. Concept Automobiles, New Delhi.  However, OP has transferred the amount of Rs.13020/- only  and Rs.7202/- were paid less by the OP and Rs.3000/- were charged as file charges instead of Rs.2000/- which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Reliance has been placed on laid down in case New India Assurance Co.Limited Vs. Pradee Kumar, Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 decided on 9.04.2009 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has reiterated all the averments mentioned in his respective reply. He argued that the that upon getting the information of the accident, the OP has appointed their IRDA Approved Surveyor to assess the actual loss pertaining to vehicle. Learned consel for the OP has also argued that Surveyor submitted his report to the company and based on that report the answering OP paid the claim amount of Rs.13020/- to the complainant. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down in cases United India Insurance Co.Limited Vs. Raj Kumar 1(2016) CPJ 555(NC), Mashaal Irrigation Pvt.Limited Vs. Natinal Insurance Co.Limited II(2016) CPJ 74 (NC) and  Essen Modern Rice Mill  (P) Limited Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Limited and another II(2016) CPJ 596 (NC).

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

 

9.             In this case insurance of the vehicle in question on the ill-fated day of accident, damages to the vehicle in question, deputing of surveyor and submission of his report and payment of claim of Rs.13020/- are not in dispute. The only dispute is as to whether the complainant  was entitled to get the entire amount of Rs.19222/- spent by him on the repairs of the insured vehicle. Vide bill Ex.C-5, the Concept Automobiles Pvt.Limited has issued the  said bill for Rs.19,222/-.  Ex.R-2, alleged  assessment print placed on record is neither stamped nor signed by any one. Therefore, document Ex.R-2 cannot be taken into consideration.  The OP has also failed to place on record affidavit of the surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13020/-.When the complainant has placed on record bills of the repairs and spare parts in such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the entire amount spent by him on the repairs of the vehicle and as such he is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.7203/- from the OP. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the OP is made out. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the OP are not applicable to the present case.

 

10.    In view of our aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of balance amount of  Rs.7202/- to the complainant alongwith with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.03.2019 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him. The OP  is    further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.

Dt.:02.02.2021                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                             President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

                  Member                             Member