IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   3^rd  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

Present: -      Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

         Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

         Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                         CC.No.148/2016

Sunija,

Haji Manzil, Thrikkovilvattom,

Umayanalloor P.O.,Kollam                                                          :           Complainant

(By Adv.N.Sarat Chandra Menon)

V/S

1. ICICI, Lombard General Insurance

Co.            Ltd., Kannankari Estate, 5^th Floor,

                Marine Drive, Shanmukhom Road,

                Cochin- 682031                                                                                 :          Opposite parties

       (By Adv.S.Dileep Kumar)

                         2^nd addl.OP Manager,

      M/s Maruti Insurance Booking Pvt.Ltd.,

     Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunju,

      New Delhi-110070.

      (2^nd addl.op impleaded as per order in IA 106/18 dated 28/05/2018)

ORDER

Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

            This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            The averments in the complaint as stands amended in short are as follows:-

            The complainant has purchased a Maruti Swift Dzire car from M/s Indus Motors, Kavanad, Kollam.  At the time of purchase of the car the 1^st opposite party requested to get the vehicle insured with the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is an agent of the 1^st opposite party which made declarations about their service and assured prompt settlement of claims better than any other insurance company and coerced the complainant to take an insurance policy from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant was advised by the 1^st  opposite party to take a comprehensive policy covering own damage risks by paying a premium of Rs.22,039/- for a IDV amount of Rs.6,21,332/-.  The complainant was impressed upon by the 1^st opposite party to pay Add-on premium for comprehensive insurance private car B policy by paying an additional premium of Rs.4,887/-.  The condition in the said policy read as under:

            Zero depreciation: in consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs.4,887/- by the insured, it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy, the company hereby undertake to deduct no amounts for depreciation in case of parts replaced on account of damage to the vehicle insured and/or its accessories, arising out of any peril as covered under the policy.

            Believing the representation made by the 1^st opposite party the complainant opted for the Add-on stated above by paying additional premium.  This facility was narrated in the common parlance as “bumper to bumper policy”.  The insured vehicle bearing No.KL-02 AS/8562 met with an accident in Karunagappally, Kollam on 08.03.2015 and the vehicle was severely damaged.  The matter was duly reported to the 1^st opposite party and the vehicle was shifted to one of the authorized service centre of Maruti ie.M/s.Sarathy Autocars, Kollam.  The opposite party duly appointed an insurance surveyor Mr.PTR Babu for conducting an inspection and submitting a survey report stating the extent of damages and loss suffered.  On 11.06.2015, the authorized service centre of Maruti ie M/s.Sarathy Autocars, Kollam informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party gave the working approval for repairing the damaged vehicle and sought for the approval from the complainant.  It took nearly 3 months for the 1^st opposite party to give working approval for the damaged vehicle as can be seen from the document produced.  The damages sustained to the insured vehicle were severe that the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to settled the claim on total loss basis.  The estimate for repairs issued by authorized service centre of Maruti ie.M/s.Sarathy Autocars, Kollam was for Rs.5,80,535/-.  The 1^st opposite party had impressed upon the complainant the various so-called attractive features of the policy, like total loss claim which is stated on the reverse side of the policy.

            Even though the claim raised by the complainant could have been settled on total loss basis the 1^st opposite party played fraud on the complainant and wriggled out of its obligation to settle the matter on total loss basis and thereby committed fraud and unfair trade practice the complainant who is an illiterate housewife.  On June 8, 2015 the surveyor appointed by the 1^st opposite party issued a letter to the authorized service centre stating that since the claim is the third one Add-on facility is not allowed as per policy conditions.  This advice by the insurance surveyor is quite contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy.  As said earlier the complainant has taken a zero depreciation policy commonly called as bumper to bumper policy.  The complainant addressed the 1^st opposite party on 14.06.2015 stating that zero depreciation policy taken by the complainant does not restrict the number of claims and expressed her dissatisfaction and protested against the stand taken by the surveyor.  The 1^st opposite party made the complainant to believe that she has to pay Rs.1,000/- only being compulsory excess for any claims.  The total cost of repairs for the vehicle came to Rs.5,73,517/- and invoice No.BR15002349 dated 09.10.2015 issued by M/s.Sarathy Autocars.  The complainant was forced to pay an amount of Rs.1,04,900/- to M/s. Sarathy Autocars for getting released of the vehicle after repairs.

            On 16.07.2015 the complainant filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi against the 1^st opposite party for redressal of her grievances.  After hearing the Insurance Ombudsman passed an award on 08.12.2015.  The award of the Insurance Ombudsman contains that in the policy produced on behalf of the complainant restriction of zero depreciation towards first two claims is not mentioned.  The order shows that the insurance company has not provided in the policy conditions restricting zero depreciation claims to two.  The award of the Insurance Ombudsman directed the opposite party to admit the claim for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- and make the full payment of the complainant within the period mentioned therein.  But the 1^st opposite party offered to issue a cheque for Rs.12,000/- to the complainant the basis of which was not made clear to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant did not accept the cheque and the dispute remains unsettled. 

The contract between the parties was entered in to on 09.08.2014.  The terms and conditions were entered in to bilaterally and contract was concluded.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party is not entitled to impose any other condition unilaterally.  Such act of the 1^st opposite party is not binding on the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party cannot curtail the benefits of the policy on the basis of any such unilateral introduction of additional clauses not agreed between the parties at the time of entering in to the contract.  The complainant was put to severe hardship and avoidable losses caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

Originally there was only one opposite party subsequently as per order in I.A 106/18 dated 25.08.2018 additional opposite party was impleaded.  However the additional 2^nd opposite party remain exparte. 

            1^st opposite party resisted the complaint by contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts that complainant had approached this Forum with unclean hands by suppressing material facts regarding the case.  The complaint is filed only to vex and harass the opposite parties unnecessarily by misusing the authority of this  Forum.  However it is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant had obtained a Four Wheeler package policy through Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd.(Additional 2^nd opposite party) who is the authorized IRDA license holder to issue the policy on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant was given the insurance policy along with the private car package policy containing terms and conditions at the time of inception of the policy itself.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy wordings issued to the complainant at the time of issuance of the insurance policy the complainant is entitled to get the benefits of zero depreciation only for two claims during a policy period and the depreciation clause is applicable for the 3^rd claim onwards during a policy period.  The policy wording regarding zero depreciation shown in the policy schedule specifically mentioned that the added-one zero depreciation benefits for comprehensive insurance private car ‘B’ policy shall be applicable to the 1^st two claims during the policy period and any subsequent claim shall be subject to deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned in the policy terms and conditions.  The complainant who was well aware of the above terms and conditions of the policy which was given to her at time of inception of the policy is making a claim for zero depreciation for the 3^rd claim preferred by her during a single policy period by deliberately suppressing the policy conditions available with her.

            The opposite party immediately on receipt of the claim from the complainant had appointed a licensed insurance surveyor and Loss Assessor Mr.PTR who inspected the damaged vehicle at the repairers workshop and assessed the extent of loss in accordance with the policy terms and conditions.  The surveyor has given proper intimation in writing to the complainant as well as to the repairer that the complainant is not entitled to get add on nil depreciation benefits under the policy as the claim preferred by the complainant is the third one during a policy period.  Since the complainant is not eligible to get zero depreciation benefits under the policy the surveyor has assessed the loss accordingly to a sum or Rs.3,85,284/- after deducting the depreciation applicable and the salvage value and policy excess etc.  The opposite party in fact liable to settle the claim only on the basis of the amount assessed by the surveyor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is contended that while the claim is pending consideration dissatisfied with the assessment made by the surveyor the complainant preferred a petition before Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi disputing the assessment made by the surveyor applying depreciation clause alone.  The Insurance Ombudsman after perusal of the records and appreciation of the evidence produced by both parties passed an order directing the opposite party to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant discarding the assessment made by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.3,85,284/-.  The opposite party accordingly released an amount of Rs.4,68,530/- to the repairer and issued a cheque for the balance amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant directly in order to comply the order of the Insurance Ombudsman.  But the complainant refused to accept the cheque issued in her name and an amount of Rs.12,000/- is still outstanding in order to satisfy the order of the Insurance Ombudsman.  It is further contended by the opposite party that the order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman is binding to the complainant in this case as the amount is arrived at by the Insurance Ombudsman without considering the depreciation clause applied by the opposite party in this case. 

The allegation made in the complaint that the opposite party unilaterally imposed a policy condition subsequent to the conclusion of contract is absolutely baseless and false.  The complainant in fact was in possession of the original policy terms and conditions given to her at the time of inception of the policy and she had suppressed the same and banking on the general instructions and informations given by the Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd., from whom the complainant had obtained insurance policy.  Even in the zero depreciation certificate issued by Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd. it is specifically endorsed that the add one coverage under for zero depreciation benefits on payment of additional premium is subject to the terms exceptions, conditions & limitations of the policy.  It is admitted that the policy wordings mentioned in the policy condition is the integral part of an insurance contract, which is perfectly binding to the parties under the contract of insurance and not the instructions and information shared by an Insurance Broking Agent.  It is pertinent to note that even in the zero depreciation certificate issued by the policy provider M/s Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt.Ltd.it is specifically mention the terms and conditions of the policy are available in the website address of the opposite party in the above certificate.  So the complainant is estopped from raising a contention regarding lack of knowledge of policy condition restricting no depreciation policy benefits applicable only for the 1^st two claims during the policy period and the depreciation clause applicable for the 3^rd claims onwards during the policy period.

            The 1^st opposite party further contends that the complaint against the opposite party for the delay in settlement of the claim are totally baseless and false and hence denied.  The complaint alone is responsible for the non-settlement of the claim within a reasonable period as she had questioned the policy terms and conditions during the process of the claim itself which ultimately caused the delay in settlement of the claim.  So the complainant has no manner of right to attribute any kind of deficiency against the opposite party and to raise any grievance against the opposite party.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is no way justifiable and is against the basic provisions of law.  The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation interest or cost from the opposite party as claimed in the complaint.  The complainant who had already accepted the claim on repair basis which has even approved by the Insurance Ombudsman has no right to put up a claim on total loss basis which is not even raised by the complainant in the petition preferred by her before the Insurance Ombudsman.  Hence the complainant is bound to pay heavy compensatory cost to the opposite party for the type of frivolous and baseless tendency to vex the opposite party unnecessarily and prays to dismiss the complaint.        

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the benefit of zero depreciation policy is applicable to the repair of the complainant’s vehicle?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim settled on the basis of total loss and also entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on this count as prayed for?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in repairing the insured vehicle and providing insurance claim to the complainant?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs No. 2 to 5 as prayed for the complainant?
5. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 documents.  The contesting 1^st opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but got marked D1 series and D2 documents.

Both sides have filed notes of argument.  Heard the counsel for the complainant and 1^st opposite party. 

Point No. 1

The following are admitted rather undisputed facts in this case. The complainant has purchased a Maruti Swift Dzire car Reg.No.KL-02-AS-8562) from M/s Indus Motors, Kavanadu, Kollam.  At the time of purchase of the car the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to take a policy of insurance from the 1^st opposite party insurance company and assured settlement of claim better than any other insurance company.  The complainant opted to take a comprehensive policy covering own damaging risk by paying a premium of Rs.22,039/- to the 1^st opposite party through the additional 2^nd opposite party.  Again she was advised to pay add-on premium of Rs.4,887/- for comprehensive insurance private car B policy.  Accordingly she purchased the add-on policy which stipulates as follows:-

“In consideration of the payment of an additional premium of Rs.4,887/- by the insured it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the agreement the company hereby undertake to deduct no amount for depreciation in case of parts replaced on account of damage to the vehicle insured/or its accessories arising out of any peril and covered under the policy”.  The insured vehicle met with an accident on 08.03.2015which resulted in severe damage to the vehicle.  The accident was reported to the 1^st opposite party and the vehicle was shifted to authorized service centre of Maruti, M/s.Sarathi Autocars, Kollam.  It is brought out in evidence that the total estimate for repair of vehicle prepared by the authorized service centre as per Ext.A6 series job card cum retail invoice was for Rs.5,80,535/-.   But on June 8, 2015  the surveyor appointed by the 1^st opposite party issued a Ext.A3 letter rejecting the add-on facility to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party gave approval for repairing the damaged vehicle only on 11.06.2015 which is evident from Est.A2 email communication.

It is brought out in evidence that against the rejection of the claim under add on facility the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman which after hearing both sides passed Ext.A8 award.  Anyhow opposite party admitted the claims for 4,80,000/- as awarded by the Ombudsman Rs.4,68,530/- was transferred to the repairer by the 1^st opposite party and the remaining amount of 12,000/- was offered to the complainant by issuing cheque to the complainant.  The complainant did not accept the cheque and the disputed the stand taken by the surveyor. 

The opposite parties would contend that the claim raised under add on policy was rejected on the ground that the nil depreciation policy is applicable only to the 1^st two claims and the present is claim is the 3^rd claim during the same policy period.  But according to the complainant he had opted for bumper to bumper policy by paying an additional premium of Rs.4,887/- apart from payment of Rs.22,039/- for availing zero depreciation to all claims without restriction as stipulated in the add on policy .  According to the complainant the policy taken by herself does not restrict number of claims under zero depreciation policy and she is not ready to accept the offer of the surveyor which was in violation of the terms of zero depreciation policy and the 1^st opposite party cannot curtail the benefits of the policy on the basis of any such unilateral insertion of additional clauses, not agreed to by the complainant at the time of entering into the contract and that if the insured is not eligible for nil depreciation benefit the company ought not have collected “Add-on” premium.                  

It is also brought out in evidence that the total cost of repairs for the vehicle amount to Rs.5,73,517/- which is evident from Ext.A6 and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.1,04,900/- as the 1^st opposite party had deducted depreciation of the spare parts which can be seen from Ext.A7 document. It is brought out in evidence that the complainant has sent Ext.A4 letter to 1^st opposite party revealing her protest against the stand taken by the surveyor as it was against policy conditions.   It is also brought out in evidence that being aggrieved by the above act of the 1^st opposite party the complainant filed the complaint before Insurance Ombudsman which after hearing both sides have passed Ext.P8 award by holding that the restrictions of zero depreciation towards first two claims is not mentioned in the policy certificate given to the complainant.  It is also pointed out in Ext.A8 that the insurance company has not provided the policy conditions restricting zero depreciation claims to the complainant.

Now the question to be considered is whether the zero depreciation is not applicable to the 3^rd claim on the same policy period as per policy condition ?

Ext.A1 series is the certificate cum policy schedule and zero depreciation certificate.  The terms and conditions of zero depreciation cover of the 1^st opposite party ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited are stated in the zero depreciation policy itself which was already quoted.    

It is true that Ext.A1 series (original insurance certificate) would go to show that depreciation on parts as per India Motor tariff will apply at the time of every claim unless opted for zero depreciation cover.  But in this case admittedly zero depreciation cover has been availed by the complainant by paying an additional Rs.4,887/-.  If the zero depreciation certificate is read with the last clause in page no.2 of the original certificate cum policy schedule would clearly indicate that depreciation is not applicable as the complainant has opted for zero depreciation cover and is applicable without any limit.  The learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party by relying at Ext.D1 series policy condition has argued that it is mentioned in policy conditions that zero depreciation applicable only to the first two claims during the policy period and any subsequent claim can be subject to depreciation applicable as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The above contention is deadly against the last condition stated in page no, 2 of Ext.P1 policy cum schedule certificate under the heading “ Must To Know”.  As last condition it is stipulated depreciation is applicable at the time of every claim unless opted for zero depreciation cover.  In other words if zero depreciation cover (Add on policy) is taken depreciation cannot be deducted at the time of every claim.  It is further to be pointed out that in the zero depreciation cover also there is no mention that it is applicable to the first two claims during the policy period.

  Admittedly Ext.A8 is the copy of the award of the Insurance Ombudsman.  It is seen from Ext.A8 award that the representative of the opposite parties have raised the very same contention before the Ombudsman.  They have also seen raised a contention before the Ombudsman that the Insurance Company has added the restrictive clause as per the IRDA circular and is applicable for all motor policies.  However there is absolutely no evidence before this commission when the insurance company has included the above restrictive policy condition in the zero depreciation policy.  The learned counsel for the complainant would argue that the opposite parties has no right to add or subtract any condition stipulated in the insurance policy unilaterally after the concluding the written agreement of insurance policy and add on policy like Ext.A1 series.  It is settled law that insurance contract is ubarimafide contract and parties to the contract has no right to add any of the terms of the contract or to interpret the terms of the contract so as to suit their convenience.  In the circumstances and also in view of the fact that  the restrictive clause in the nil depreciation policy was not accepted by the Insurance Ombudsman we are inclined to hold that the stipulation regarding the subsequently added restrictive clause shown in the website is not at all applicable to Ext.A1 series package policy and nil depreciation policy.  Therefore we hold that the opposite parties are bound to entertain the claim raised by the complainant even if it is the 3^rd claim during the same policy period.

Point No.2      

The allegations in the complaint in paragraph No.5 would show that the damages sustained to the insured vehicle were great (severe) that the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to settle the claim on total loss basis.  In view of the terms and conditions stated over leaf of the package policy would specifies when a total loss claim can be entertained.  Accordingly when the damages are so severe that claim assessment (survey) indicates that the vehicle is beyond repairs or it shows that insurance company’s liability is more than 75% of vehicle’s IDV (Insured Declared Value).  The estimate for repairs issued by authorized service centre of Maruti M/s Sarathy Autocars, Kollam was for Rs.5,80,535/-.  According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party had impressed upon the complainant the various so-called attractive features of the policy, like total loss claim which is stated on the reverse page of the policy.                            The above pleadings have been fully reiterated in paragraph 5 of the proof affidavit also.                It is further stated in paragraph 5 of the  proof affidavit that   even  though the  claim could have been settled  on total loss basis, the 1^st opposite party played fraud on her                                                                                                                                    (complainant) and wriggled out of its obligation to settle the matter on total loss basis.  Needless to mention that this fraud and unfair trade practice has been played on an illiterate housewife.  These facts are stated in the 1^st and last but one paragraph of Ext.A4 notice dated 14.06.2015 send by the original complainant requesting the 1^st opposite party to settle the claim.  However the opposite parties have not much disputed regarding the claim of total loss raised by the complainant when PW1 was in the witness box.  Ext.A6 series is the job card retail invoice prepared by the authorized service centre which would clearly indicate that the vehicle has sustained severe damage including the damage to the shell and made an estimate for Rs.5,73,517/-. The 1^st opposite party has paid Rs.4,68,530/- after deducting depreciation of Rs.1,04,900/-.  If both the amount are added together the total repairing charge would be 5,73,430/-. The IDV of the vehicle is stated in Ext.A1 series insurance policy is Rs.6,21,332/-.  Therefore it is clear that the insurance company’s liability to settle the claim of repairing charges to the tune of Rs.5,73,430/- which is more than 75% of the vehicle’s IDV of Rs.6,21,332/-. Therefore this is fit case to consider the claim as one coming under total loss.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.3  

Admittedly the accident took place on 08.03.2015 and the vehicle was shifted to the authorized service centre of the Maruti M/s Sarathy Autocars, Kollam without delay.  The 1^st opposite party has appointed the authorized insurance surveyor Mr.P.T.R Babu  who inspected the damaged vehicle at the premises of workshop and assessed the extent of loss in accordance with policy term and conditions and submitted a report to the insurance company as well as to the authorized service centre.  However Ext.A3 is the copy of the email by the authorized surveyor Sri.P.T.R. Babu to the service centre/M/s Sarathy Autocars, Kollam dated 08.06.2015 attaching the detailed work order.  It is further stated in Ext.A3 email communication directing the service centre to proceed with repair of the vehicle including  “ replacing body  shell” in consultation with insured.  The above communication itself would indicate that the damage sustained to the above vehicle is very severe in nature and even the body shell as to be replaced which would clearly indicate that the claim would squarely come within the purview of total loss. 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there is an inordinate delay of 3 months for obtaining the approval of the insurance company for starting the repair work of the damaged vehicle amounts to deficiency in service. As indicated above the surveyor deputed by the opposite parties has taken almost 3 months time to file his report before the opposite parties 4 more months time has taken by the authorized service centre of opposite parties to carried out the repair work and the vehicle was returned to the complainant only on 09.10.2015. Even after receiving the letter from the authorized surveyor on 08.06.2015 the insurance company made a further delay of 3 more days in issuing Ext.A2 approval.  In the circumstances we find force in the above argument.

In view of the finding with regard to point No.2 it is clear that though the claim raised by the complainant in respect of her insured vehicle squarely come within the purview of the total loss as the damages sustained to vehicle was very severe and more than 75% of the IDV is required to set right the defects and damages sustained to the insured vehicle due to the accident. But the surveyor and the opposite party insurance company for the reasons best known to them have not considered it as a total loss in spite of repeated request of the complainant.  The above nonfeasance and malfeasance of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.  In view of the reasons stated above we hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing that there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2.  The point answered accordingly.

Point No.4   

The 1^st relief sought for in the complainant is to award compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for not having settled the claim on total loss basis.  In view of our finding with regard to point No.2 it is crystal clear that the complainant is entitled to get the claim settled on the basis of total loss.  Admittedly the IDV of the insured vehicle is Rs.6,21,332/-.  The insurance company has already released Rs.4,68,530/- to the repairer.  If the said amount is deducted from the IDV the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,52,802/-  more and that much amount is due  to the complainant if the claim is considered as one coming under total loss.  Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,52,802/- on this count.

The complainant by way of relief No.2 prays to pass an order directing the 1^st opposite party to pay sum of Rs.1,04,900/- from the complainant being the cost of depreciation she was compelled to pay to the repairer.  It is crystal clear from Ext.A1 series depreciation cover (add on policy) that the add on policy shall not be applicable in the event of total loss/constructive total loss of the vehicle insured under the policy.  Therefore we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get the amount claimed under the above head.

The 3^rd relief sought for is to refund the travelling expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant during the interim period of seven months from the date of accident till  it was repaired and returned.  There is absolutely no material before the commission to allow the above claim.  The complainant  has not properly pleaded and proved that she had incurred Rs.1,00,000/- or any amount towards travelling expenses nor produced and got marked any documentary evidence such as taxi bill or receipt.  In the circumstances we are not inclined to grant any amount on this count.

Yet another relief sought for under relief No.4 is to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, hardship and suffering.  It is brought out in evidence that after the accident about  seven months time was taken to get the vehicle repaired even though it was removed to the workshop immediately after the accident.  It is crystal clear from the materials available on record that the above culpable delay is due to the negligence and derelictions of duty on the part of the authorized surveyor deputed by the insurance company.  It is clear from the available materials that in view of the above inordinate delay and also on account of non-consideration of her claim on total loss basis and also due to the realization Rs.1,04,900/- as depreciation charge even though the complainant is having add on policy which ensures zero depreciation to all the parts the complainant has sustained severe mental agony and pain apart from financial loss.  Therefore she is entitled to get compensation on that count.  Though the complainant would claim Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties we are of the view that the above claim is little bit excessive.  In view of the facts and circumstances available on record we are of the view that compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- will be reasonable and sufficient.  In view of the facts and circumstance of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.  The point answered accordingly.

Point 5 

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.1,52,802/- being the balance amount as the claim is to be settled as one coming under total loss along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of complaint.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date complaint as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply with above directions

within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,77,802/- along withinterest @9 % p.a. from the date of complaint till realization along with cost Rs.10,000/- from opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 3^rd day of  December 2021.

                E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                        S.SANDHYA  RANI:Sd/-

                         STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                : Baiju

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1  series  : Certificate cum policy dated 09.08.2014. 

Ext.A2            : Letter (email) Sarathy Autocars dated 11.06.2015

Ext.A3             : Email issued by the Surveyor dated 08.06.2015

Ext.A4          : Letter sent by the complainant to the

  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.dated 14.06.2015

Ext.A5        : Email from customer service manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

                           Ltd. dated 25.06.2015

Ext.A6 series  : Job card cum retail invoice issued from Sarathy Autocars dated 11.08.2015

Ext.A7             : Receipt issued from Sarathy Autocars dated 09.10.2015

Ext.A8             : Award issued from Insurance Ombudsman dated 16.12.2015.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.D1 series              : Certificate of insurance dated 09.08.2014

Ext.D2                        : Schedule issued from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

                       E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                          S.SANDHYA  RANI:Sd/-

                           STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent