BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.172 of 2017

Date of Instt. 01.06.2017

Date of Decision: 20.06.2018

Amolak Singh S/o Sh. Makhan Singh R/o Nandanpur Colony, Village Nandanpur, P.O. Nagra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Maharastra-400025 through its Managing Director.

2. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Nirmal Complex, Near Bhagwan Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant is owner of Etios Car bearing No.PB-08-DA-9027 having Chasis No.MBJB49BT600103179 and Engine No.1ND1411002 and the same was purchased by the complainant on 23.06.2015 and on the same day, it was got insured from OPs and the said insurance was valid from 23.06.2015 to 22.06.2016. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.7,14,624/- and the premium of the insurance was also paid.

2. That the above said vehicle was used by the complainant for his domestic purpose and unfortunately, the said vehicle was met with an accident at Karnal (Haryana) on 19.10.2015 in the morning at about 08:00 am and at that time, the vehicle was being driving by the brother of the complainant namely Anoop Singh and whereby vehicle was totally damaged. Then the vehicle was brought at the Workshop of the Toyota Company, A.N.R. Motors, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar on 19.10.2015 by the complainant himself. Thereafter, the OP appointed Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report to the OP. The estimate of the loss was also prepared by M/s A.N.R. Motors Private Limited and reported that the loss caused to the vehicle is of Rs.6,38,464.62. Thereafter, the complainant make request number of times to the OP to pay the insurance claim of Rs.7,14,624/-, but the OP did not accede the genuine request of the complainant, which is no doubt a deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant had suffered a lot of mental tension, harassment, financial loss etc. due to the above said unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the OPs are liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.7,14,624/- to the complainant because the vehicle has been completely/totally damaged.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had earlier filed a similar complaint in this Forum bearing CC No.540/2015, which was decided by this Forum on 05.09.2016 by giving direction to the OP to decide the insurance claim of the complainant within one month and direction was also given to the complainant to submit documents if any, but despite that direction, the OP has not decided the claim of the complainant and as such, the OP has caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant, which gave cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,14,624/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OPs and the same is pre-matured as the claim is pending for settlement for want of documents to be furnished by the complainant and for want of fulfilling the required formalities for processing and settling the claim by the OPs as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Despite directions by the Forum, vide order dated 05.09.2016, the complainant has not submitted the document and fulfill the required formalities for the processing and settlement of the claim. It is further averred that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. It is the complainant, who is at fault by not furnishing the required documents as demanded and not fulfilling the required formalities for the processing and settling the claim and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained insurance policy of the vehicle, but the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Aman Singh as Ex.OA along with some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3 and thereafter, the evidence of the OP No.1 and 2 closed by order.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the file very minutely.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, it has been revealed that the complainant is owner of the car bearing No.PB-08-DA-9027 and the same was got insured with OPs and the photostat copy of the insurance is available on the file Ex.C-2 and RC of the vehicle is produced on the file by the complainant Ex.C-1. So, for the concern of accident of the vehicle in question on 19.10.2015 is not disputed by the OPs, so, the facts which are not specifically denied is presumed to be admitted and moreover, the OP has not alleged in the written reply that no accident ever took place rather the OP has alleging that the insurance claim of the complainant is pre-mature for want of required documents and formalities and further alleged by the OP despite direction of this Forum in a previous complaint, the complainant miserably failed to produce the documents as required according to the letter dated 22.01.2016and 10.02.2016 and for want of that document, the insurance claim of the complainant has not yet been decided and therefore, this complaint is pre-mature.

9. We find that the similar plea had been taken by the OP in a previous complaint filed by the complainant i.e. Complaint No.540 of 2015, decided on 05.09.2016. Copy of the order of this Forum is available on the file as Ex.C-4. Prior to reveal the contents of order of this Forum, we like to make a reference that the OP alleged that the complainant has not deposited the document as required/demanded, vide letter dated 22.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 and also failed to fulfill the required formalities for processing and settlement of the claim and due to that reason, the insurance claim of the complainant has not been decided by the OP, if we see the aforesaid plea of the OP as taken in the written reply, in the light of the order of this Forum dated 05.09.2016 Ex.C-4, then we can say without any hesitation that there was no direction given by this Forum to the complainant to submit any document as demanded by the OP, vide letter dated 22.01.2016 and 10.02.2016, which are Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2, in that file, rather if we go through the order, wherein it is categorically mentioned as under:- “The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that they have already furnished the document to the OPs as required and whatever documents demanded by the OPs from the complainant, vide letters Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2.”

10. The aforesaid order itself construe the sense that the document whatsoever demanded by the OP, vide letter Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 has been already furnished by the complainant and further direction was given by this Forum that the complainant if wants to submit any other document to the OP that shall be submitted to the OP No.2 within seven days, means that a liberty was given to the complainant to further submitted any additional document, if any to the OP, the same be submitted within seven days, not of the that document, which are demanded, vide letters Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2. So, accordingly, we conclude that through the aforesaid order of this Forum, there was no liability fixed upon the complainant to submit any document. So, the plea taken by the OP is totally wrong that the complainant has not submitted any required document.

11. From the over all facts, itself shows that the OP has intentionally and willfully did not obey the order of this Forum, which was passed on 05.09.2016, whereby direction was given to the OP to decide the claim case of the complainant within one month. Accordingly, we came to conclusion that the OPs are taking a flimsy plea of pre-mature just to lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and thus, we find that there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

12. Coming to the quantum of insurance claim, admittedly as per insurance policy, the IDV of the insured vehicle is Rs.7,14,624/- and the damages caused to the vehicle was got assessed by the complainant from M/s A.N.R. Motors Pvt. Ltd., which is of Rs.6,38,464.62, regarding that, the report of the said A.N.R Motors Pvt. Ltd is available on the file Ex.C-3.

13. To counter the aforesaid estimate of A.N.R. Motors Pvt. Ltd, the OP has also brought on the file estimate made by the Surveyor Rakesh Grover, the photostat copy of the same is Ex.O-1 and as per Surveyor, the estimate of the damage vehicle is Rs.4,13,624/-. We astonished to see the calculation made by the Surveyor, wherein he assessed the salvage value of Rs.24,500/- in the summary estimation and then on the basis of total loss, he excluded the salvage value of Rs.3,00,000/- from the total IDV and then concluded that the assessed loss is at Rs.4,13,624/-.

14. We find that the aforesaid assessment is totally against the principle of nature because the Surveyor showing the hand for giving a different and for getting a different hand, which is not acceptable because when he assessed the salvage value from the total loss amount assessed by himself, then he less the amount of Rs.24,500/- as salvage value, but when the salvage value is excluded from the IDV, then it increased from Rs.24,500/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, which is clearly manipulated formula of the Surveyor just to give the benefit to the company from whom he get a charges in the shape of fees. So, under these circumstances,we are of the opinion that the estimate report submitted by the Surveyor is not according to the actually assessment of the loss caused to the vehicle, whereas as per assessment of the TATA Motors, the same is Rs.6,38,464.62, means the vehicle is totally damaged and whenever vehicle is totally damaged, then the insured person is entitled to get the total IDV of the vehicle and accordingly, in this case, the complainant is also entitled for the total IDV of the vehicle in question.

15. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to make the payment of total IDV of Rs.7,14,624/- after excluding the salvage value of Rs.24,500/- from the aforesaid amount, to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

16. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

20.06.2018 Member President