District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.135/2020.

 Date of Institution: .12.03.2020.

Date of Order: .10.10.2022.

Mohd. Gayam Khan son of Shri Abdul Rehman, resident of village Uttawar, Tehsil Hathin, Distt. Palwal.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., First  Floor, SCO. 17, Sector-16, Faridabad-121002, Distt. Faridabad through its General Manager.

2.                ICICI Lombard 414, P. Balu Marg, Off Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Mohd. Rahish ,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant was owner of the vehicle No. HR-52-F-3615 Eco Sports and the opposite parties insured this vehicle vide policy NO. 3001/161017330/00/B00 w.e.f. 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2019.  The above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on dated 18.10.2019 and the complainant met with an accident on dated 18.10.2019 and the complainant lodged the complaint to the police of P.S. Gopalgarh bearing GD No. 20 dated 19.10.2019 and the same was damaged and the complainant filed motor insurance claim form and the opposite party issued a claim NO. MOTO09307024 to the complainant and the complainant also got an estimate form the Eco Sports ford automobiles private limited and the authorized dealer estimated the costs in the damages insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,21,351/- out of the estimated amount and opposite parties paid only Rs.2,19,351/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,02,000/- did not paid by the opposite parties and the complainant was pressurized to pay this amount to the Pawaha Motors inclusive labour and parts vide estimate No. 458 of Rs.48,000/- on dated 26.11.2019 and 9815 of Rs.54,000/- on dated 14.01.2020, moreover the vehicle was estimated for the total loss and as the vehicle was not being released so the complainant was left with no choice whereas the policy bought by the complainant was of 0% debit nature, hence the amount recovered from the complainant be returned back.   The expenditure incurred by the complainant on the damage of vehicle was required to be fully remitted back the cost of Rs.1,02,000/- taken forcefully from the complainant wince the vehicle losses/claim was a part of responsibility of the opposite parties and could not be called the misrepresentation by the complainant being the material facts.  The complainant several times visited  in the office of the opposite parties and demanded to pay the entire amount paid by the complainant to the Pawaha Motors of Rs.1,02,000/- as contrary to the insurance policy and to pay the entire amount back to the complainant and to comply with the insurance policy but the opposite party made one plea or the other and did not pay the amount to the

 complainant, hence this complaint. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 29.1.2020 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                pay an amount of Rs.102,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.m. to the complainant as per the policy of the complainant.

 b)                pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant neither had any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging of the present complaint.  It was submitted that the complainant-insured had lodged his own damage claim as to damage to insured vehicle occurred on 18.10.2019 with the insurance company under cash less scheme through repair viz. Pahwa Ford, Faridabad by sharing the repair bill for amounting  Rs.3,21,351/- and for which the insurance company had deputed an IRDA Licenced Independent Surveyor viz. Indersain  Kumar so as to assess the loss, in turn, after survey, the said surveyor had submitted his survey report dated 18.12.2019, whereby, assessed the payable loss as Rs.2,21,313/-, resultantly, the insurance company had already released the said payable claim amount in full and final settlement as Rs.2,17,965/- to Pahwa Autoworld Pvt. Ltd. Being the repairer vide NEFT under CMS 1350755591 dated 03.01.2020 and so accepted too by the complainant and so accepted too by the complainant – insured, which decision could not be termed unconscionable at all. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. Ltd. & Anr. with the prayer to: a)  pay an amount of Rs.102,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.m. to the complainant as per the policy of the complainant.  b) pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,   Ex. CW-1/A – affidavit of Mohd. Gayam Khan,, Ex.CW-1/1 – RC,, Ex.CW-1/2 – letter regarding Risk Assumption Letter, Ex.CW-1/3 –insurance policy,, Ex.CW-1/4 -  Dairy Details, Ex.CW-1/5 – note form ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,, Ex.W-1/6 – Retail/Tax Invoice,, Ex. CW-1/7 – Receipt for Rs.48,000/-, Ex.CW-1/8 – Cash Receipt Voucher for Rs.54,000/-, legal notice, Ex.CW-1/9 – Adhaar card.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly

agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW!/A – affidavit of Shri Deepak Bansal, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi,, Ex.R1 – Insurance policy, Ex.R2 – RC,, Ex.R3–Claim Intimation Sheet, ,Ex.R4  - Claim form, Ex.R-5 – Retail/Tax Invoice – Service, Ex.R6 – Motor Survey Report, Ex.R7 – details of cheque.

6.                In this complaint, the complainant was owner of the vehicle No. HR-52-F-3615 Eco Sports and the opposite parties insured this vehicle vide policy NO. 3001/161017330/00/B00 w.e.f. 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2019.  The above said vehicle

of the complainant met with an accident on dated 18.10.2019 and the complainant lodged the complaint to the police of P.S. Gopalgarh bearing GD No. 20 dated 19.10.2019 and the same was damaged and the complainant filed motor insurance claim form and the opposite party issued a claim NO. MOTO09307024 to the complainant and the complainant also got an estimate form the Eco Sports ford automobiles private limited and the authorized dealer estimated the costs in the damages insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,21,351/- out of the estimated amount and opposite parties paid only Rs.2,19,351/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,02,000/- did not paid by the opposite parties and the complainant was pressurized to pay this amount to the Pawaha Motors inclusive labour and parts vide estimate No. 458 of Rs.48,000/- on dated 26.11.2019 vide Ex. CW-1/7 and 9815 of Rs.54,000/- on dated 14.01.2020 vide Ex. CW-1/8, moreover the vehicle was estimated for the total loss and as the vehicle was not being released so the complainant was left with no choice whereas the policy bought by the complainant was of 0% debit nature, hence the amount recovered from the complainant be returned back.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has obtained the Zero Depth Policy.  The surveyor has deducted the amount without any reason. Opposite parties are directed to charge only excess clause from the complainant. In the interest of justice, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to process the claim of the complainant  within 30 days from the date  of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint  till its realization.  The opposite parties are also

directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 10.10.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                          (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.