Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/265/2021

Mrs Ritika Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sapehia

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/265/2021
Date of Institution	:	20/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2024

 

Mrs. Ritika Sachdeva, aged 57 years, resident of H.No.29, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, TF-1, Third Floor, 88,Tahe Mall Ludhiana, Punjab 141001. Also at Tyota Tusho Insurance Broker India Pvt. Ltd. c/o Globe Tyota Plot No.B-51, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. M/s Tyota Automobiles Pvt. Limited through its authorized representative Plot No.B-51, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anant Pal Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Sh. Shivam Grover, Advocate for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ritika Sachdeva, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the registered owner of an Innova car bearing registration No.CH01-BE-0091 (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”) as per Registration certificate (Annexure C-1) and the same was insured with OP-1/insurer under comprehensive insurance policy cover (Annexure C-2) w.e.f. 6.10.2020 to 5.10.2021 (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”).  On 25.12.2020, the subject vehicle met with an accident and immediately OP-1 was intimated about the same.  The surveyor visited the place of occurrence as per instructions of OP-1 and the subject vehicle was handed over to OP-2 for necessary repairs on 26.12.2020.  It was informed to the complainant that she has to pay compulsory deduction amount of ₹2,000/- only.  In this manner, when the complainant had purchased the subject comprehensive policy, there was no liability of the complainant except the compulsory deduction.  The complainant was never supplied with the terms and conditions of the subject policy.  However, when the subject vehicle was repaired by OP-2, it raised demand of ₹44,000/- on the pretext that OP-1 has not approved the entire cost of repair and spare parts etc.  Since the complainant was in urgent need of the subject vehicle, she was compelled to pay the aforesaid amount vide receipt (Annexure C-3).  After taking delivery of the subject vehicle, it was found that OP-2 has failed to repair the same as per commitment, since the brakes were not repaired, rims were not replaced and wipers were not working. When the said issues were raised by the complainant with OP-2, she was informed that the subject vehicle is again required by OP-2 for further repair work. The complainant was shocked when, at the time of taking delivery of the subject vehicle, OP-2 again raised bill of ₹7,250/- on account of repair of brakes, which was again paid by the complainant vide receipt (Annexure C-4) as the vehicle was required by her.  Later on, it was again found that alloy wheels, which were damaged during the accident, were also not replaced and the complainant was again compelled to pay the cost of the repair of the same vide bill (Annexure C-5).  In this manner, both the OPs have failed to justify why the entire loss to the vehicle has not been settled by OP-1 despite of the fact that complainant had purchased the subject comprehensive policy. In this manner, the act of OPs in demanding/collecting ₹44,000/- + ₹22,000/- + ₹7,250/- = ₹73,250/-, spent by her from her own pocket for the repair of the subject vehicle, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In its written version, OP-1, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and also that the claim was settled as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the deductions have taken place on account of applicable depreciation clause depending on the age of the vehicle.  It is further alleged that as per GR-9, depreciation on parts for partial loss claim was made in respect of all categories of vehicle/accessories qua rubber, nylon/plastic parts, tyre & tubes, batteries, air bags, fibre glass components, glass and other parts, including wooden parts, as per the aforesaid clause. The claim of the complainant was settled only after making deduction as per GR-9.  It is further alleged that date of registration of the subject vehicle is 5.11.2015 and the date of accident was 25.12.2020 and in this manner, 50% depreciation was applicable which was considered and calculated in the claim. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-2, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and also that the complainant has distorted the facts and has filed a false complaint against the answering OP.  However, it is admitted that the subject vehicle was received for accidental repair on 25.11.2020 by the dealership of the answering OP and estimate (Annexure OP-2/1) qua repair of the same was prepared and job order is Annexure OP-2/2.  OP-1/insurer had informed the dealership of the answering OP vide email dated 27.1.2021 (Annexure OP-2/3) to release the subject vehicle to the complainant after collecting ₹44,000/- from her and after receiving the aforesaid amount from the complainant, the subject vehicle was accordingly released in her favour without any protest raised by the complainant. It is further alleged that on 6.2.2021, complainant again contacted the answering OP regarding problem of brakes and FLH door handle check regarding which job order (Annexure OP-2/6) was prepared. Even alleged issues with respect to rim, wiper and brakes were not raised by the complainant when the vehicle in question was reported to the dealership of the answering OP and also at the time when the complainant had taken the subject vehicle from the answering OP. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle which was got insured by her from OP-1/insurer and the subject policy was valid w.e.f. 6.10.2020 to 5.10.2021, as is also evident from Annexure C-2, and the subject vehicle had met with an accident on 25.12.2020 and after giving intimation to OP-1, the subject vehicle was repaired by OP-2, who had raised bill to the tune of ₹2,42,677/-, out of which the complainant was asked to pay ₹44,000/- whereas the remaining amount was paid by the insurance company/OP-1 and subsequent to that the complainant has also got the subject vehicle repaired from OP-2 regarding which bill dated 6.2.2021 (Annexure C-4/) to the tune of ₹7,250/- was raised and further the complainant got the alloys replaced on payment of ₹22,000/- vide bill dated 18.2.2021 (Annexure C-5) to the proprietor of Raja Tyres, Patiala and lodged the claim, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if OP-1/ insurer is unjustified in asking the complainant to pay an amount of ₹44,000/- and not to settle the amount for the subsequent repairs with respect to the amounts of ₹7,250/- and ₹22,000/- having been paid by the complainant vide Annexure C-4 and C-5, and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OP-1 has rightly denied the partial claim of the complainant in the light of the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the survey report i.e. by making deduction qua rubber/plastic parts etc. and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence, having been led by both the parties on record, and the same is required to be scanned carefully.
   3. As per the case of the complainant, OP-1 has wrongly denied the claim of the complainant to the tune of ₹44,000/- and asked her to pay the aforesaid amount to OP-2 before taking delivery of the subject vehicle.  Admittedly, the total amount of the bill for the repair of the subject vehicle was ₹2,42,677/-, as is also evident from the invoice/receipt issued by OP-2 which is annexed with the survey report dated 6.1.2021 (Annexure R I).  As it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹44,000/- to OP-2 before receiving the subject vehicle from it, as is also evident from the receipt (Annexure C-3), and the aforesaid amount was received by OP-2 on the instructions of OP-1/ insurer, the only question for determination before this Commission is if the aforesaid amount of ₹44,000/- was wrongly asked by OP-1 from the complainant to be paid to OP-2.
   4. As per the defence of OP-1, the surveyor had calculated the aforesaid amount and applied deduction, as tabulated column No.7 under the head ‘Depr’ in the surveyor report (Annexure R I) as per terms & conditions of the subject policy (Annexure R II).  The relevant portion of the subject policy is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“SECTION I. LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE INSURED

The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured hereunder and/or its accessories whilst thereon

        xxx                    xxx                    xxx

Subject to a deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of parts replaced:

1.     For all rubber/nylon/plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries and air bags-50%

2.      For fibre glass components-30%

3.      For all parts made of glass-Nil

4.      Rate of depreciation for all other parts including wooden parts will be as per the following schedule.

AGE OF VEHICLE	% OF DEPRECIATION
Not exceeding 6 months	Nil
Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year	5%
Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years	10%
Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years	15%
Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding 4 years	25%
Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding 5 years	35%
Exceeding 5 years but not exceeding 10 years	40%
Exceeding 10 years	50%

5. Since it is evident from the detailed surveyor report that the surveyor has applied the rate of deprecation, applicable as per the terms and conditions of the subject policy after taking into consideration the rubber, fibre glass etc., details of which are given in the survey report in tabulated form, it is unsafe to hold that OP-1/ insurer is justified in only partially allowing the claim of the complainant and asking her to pay the remaining amount. 
6. So far as the subsequent claims raised by the complainant qua bills which were raised by OP-2 to the tune of ₹7,250/- for the disc work of the subject vehicle having been done vide receipt dated 11.2.2021 (Annexure C-4) and ₹22,000/- paid by the complainant to Raja Tyre, Patiala towards “4 Alloys 16” vide tax invoice dated 18.2.2021 (Annexure C-5) are concerned, as the complainant has failed to prove on record that the said works/damage to the parts was caused in the accident regarding which the complainant had raised claim, especially when it has come on record that the complainant has firstly accepted the subject vehicle from OP-2 on 27.2.2021 without raising any protest/objection qua pending works and thereafter has again approached OP-2 for the brake disc work of the subject vehicle after about 15 days and again replaced four alloys of the subject vehicle from Raja Tyres, Patiala on 18.2.2021 i.e. after about 22 days, which otherwise are accessories, it is safe to hold that the complainant is not entitled for the aforesaid amounts of ₹7250/- and ₹22,000/- which she had spent for the additional repairs/works of the subject vehicle for which no loss was caused during the accident and OP-1/insurer is not liable to pay the same. 
7. In view of the above, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal. 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/01/2024 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member