Delhi

North East

CC/194/2016

RAM PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ICICI LOM MOTOR INS.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.194/16

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Ram Prakash

S/o Sh. Bhola Ram

R/o B-132, B-Block

Gokal Puri Delhi 110094

 

 

 

Complainant

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

M/s ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company

DDA Market, First Floor, 101 J&K Market,

Dilshad Garden Delhi 110095

 

Head Office

M/s ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company

4th Floor, Redfort Capital, Parsavnath Tower,

Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Goal Market

New Delhi 110001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

               DATE OF INSTITUTION:

        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:

                        DATE OF ORDER  :

25.07.2016

05.06.2023

09.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

  1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant has a motorcycle and the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party w.e.f 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015. On 02.12.2014, at about    10.00 p.m the complainant had gone to attend a marriage in Nand Nagri and parked and properly locked his vehicle near Anjuman Masjid, Nand Nagri. At about 05.00 a.m in the morning of 03.12.2014 when the Complainant came and found that the said vehicle was not there. Complainant searched the said vehicle but not found. Complainant made a telephonic call to police control room at 100 and registered a FIR bearing no. 774/2014 at P.S G.T.B Enclave, Delhi. Complainant stated that theft of the vehicle had also been intimated to the Opposite Party on the same day i.e. 03.12.2014. After that complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and requested them to settle the claim but every time they postpone the matter on the one pretext or the other. Complainant stated that in the month of November, 2015, the said vehicle was traced by the police and the same was taken on superdari by the Complainant from the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.11.2015. At the time of recovery of the said vehicle the police prepared a seizure memo and as per seizure memo the said vehicle was badly damaged and was not in working condition. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party about recovery and superdari of the said vehicle. As per advised of the Opposite Party, Complainant has taken the said vehicle to the workshop at Rajindra Honda. The Complainant also requested the Opposite Party to appoint a surveyor. The Opposite Party appointed a surveyor and surveyor visited the workshop and estimate of repair was provided. After that surveyor verbally gave green signal for repairing. Then the Complainant got his vehicle repaired and the workshop issued bill of        Rs. 17,017/-. Then the Complainant informed the Opposite Party but Opposite Party clearly refused to pay the bill and the workshop denied to handover the vehicle to the Complainant. After that the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and official of Opposite Party assured the Complainant that the Opposite Party would pay the bill to the workshop.  But Opposite Party failed to pay the amount to the workshop.  Complainant stated that after that workshop started to pressurize the Complainant to make the payment and take the vehicle otherwise they would charge parking charge from the Complainant. It is his case that the Opposite Party paid only Rs. 1,700/- to the workshop. Complainant made the payment of Rs. 15,009/- to the workshop. Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party with the purpose to submit the receipts of payment and other documents to settle the claim but the Opposite Party clearly refused to take any documents. Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party several times but Opposite Party did not settle the claim. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of   Rs. 15,009/- as the cost of repairing along with interest 18 %, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 9,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

  1. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false and frivolous. It is admitted that motorcycle of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party for the period from 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015. It is stated that after the recovery of the vehicle by the police the Opposite Party appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle in the presence of the Complainant. The surveyor assessed the liability of the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs. 1,700/-. The other damages were normal wear and tear and due to misuse of the vehicle which was not covered under the insurance policy. The said amount of Rs. 1,700/- was released as per the surveyor report. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has denied the allegations made by the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

  1. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

  1. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

  1. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Vikash Goyal, Legal Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

  1. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party. The said vehicle was stolen and thereafter it was recovered by the police. The Complainant has obtained the vehicle on superdari and then handed it over to the workshop for repair. The case of the Complainant is that he has spent Rs. 17,017/- to the workshop for repair whereas the Opposite Party has paid Rs. 1,700/- only to the workshop and the Complainant made the payment of       Rs. 15,009/- to the workshop out of his pocket. On the other hand it is admitted by the Opposite Party that the vehicle of the Complainant was insured by it. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was stolen and was recovered by the police. It is also admitted that the Complainant has obtained the said vehicle on superdari.
  2. The dispute between the parties is that the Complainant’s case is that an amount of Rs. 17,017/- was spent on the repair of the vehicle and the Opposite Party has paid only Rs. 1,700/- and the remaining amount was paid by him. The case of the Opposite Party is that a surveyor was appointed who has inspected the vehicle in the presence of the Complainant and as per the report of the surveyor the liability of the Opposite Party was only to pay an amount of Rs. 1,700/-.
  3. Admittedly, surveyor was appointed for inspection of the vehicle in question. There is nothing on record to suggest that surveyor has recommended the cost of the repair of the vehicle as claimed by the Complainant.  The Complainant has filed copy of tax invoice dated 25.02.2016 of Rajindra Motors Workshop which shows the total expenditure as Rs. 4,016/-. The perusal of the said tax invoice further shows that it was an accidental claim.  The other invoice the copy of the invoice which has been filed by the Complainant is dated 06.05.2016. The said invoince pertains to the general repairs and not the accidental claim. The first repair which was done after the recovery of the vehicle was on 25.02.2016 and this invoice pertains to May 2016 meaning thereby the said repair/work was got done after much delay of the recovery of the vehicle. Had the said repair was in connection with the accident etc. the same would have done during the early repair which was done vide invoice dated 25.02.2016. Therefore, it is clear that the invoice dated 06 May, 2016 does not pertain to the work or repair in connection with the loss/theft of the vehicle. Similarly, one copy of invoice dated 07.05.2016 has been filed by the Complainant. This also does not pertain to the repair done in consequences of the damage caused due to theft. Further at the time of recovery the investigating officer has prepared a seizure memo. The perusal of the seizure memo shows that the damages found at that time were not so much.
  4. In view of the about discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
  5. Order announced on 09.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)

 

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)

(Member)

 

(President)

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.