Delhi

North East

CC/53/2023

Tabassum - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Nov 2024

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. 53/23

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Tabassum W/o Mansoor R/o F 353, St. No. 12, Chand Bagh	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	ICICI Lombard General Insurance Through its Secretary/Managing Director/ Authorized Person Regd. & Corporate Office- 7th floor Mercantile House Connaught Place New Delhi 110001   Fair Deals Car Workshop E 1 Main Wazirabad Road, Opposite Yamuna Vihar Indian Petrol Pump Chand Bagh Delhi 110094	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTI ON:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:  DATE OF ORDER:

03.03.23 09.08.24 08.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Maruti Suzuki Swift LXI bearing registration no. DL 6CS 4628S and got insured through Opposite Party No.1 having policy no. 3001/0//MI 10779708/00/000 valid up to 09.02.23. On 05.10.22 Complainant and her husband met with an accident at the place of village Karheda, Ghaziabad, UP when a truck came in rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break and as a result due to this impact, the other vehicle which was coming very high speed rubbing the vehicle of the Complainant deeply on its front and passenger side and as a result, the several scratches marked upon the said vehicle specially the main glass was broken, bumper, bonnet, headlight, passenger side doors, roof of passenger side, etc. got damaged.  Thereafter, Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for repair of her vehicle and also disclosed to Opposite Party No.1 about the said damages. Upon that, survey was conducted by Opposite Party No.1 and inspected the vehicle and at that time Opposite Party No.2 told expenses of the damages of said vehicle as Rs. 1,09,635/- to Complainant and Complainant handed over vehicle to Opposite Party No.2 and thereafter given entire bill amount to Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant stated that as per the terms and condition of the said policy, Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay the amount for any expenses of the said vehicle if occurs upon the said vehicle in future but Opposite Party No.1 time and again given the false assurance to the Complainant to give the approval towards the repairing of the said vehicle. Therefore, without approval of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 has not touched the said vehicle for repairing and Opposite Party No.2 also removed many essential parts from the vehicle. On 11.11.22, both Opposite Parties rejected the claim with remarks “misrepresented the material facts (tried to hide material facts)” while the Complainant disclosed everything pertaining to the said vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1.  Thereafter, Complainant brought his vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 and tried to start but same was not started on its original position which surprised the Complainant as Opposite Party No.2 has defected the vehicle during the possession of the same. The Complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 to give approval to Opposite Party No.2 for repairing said vehicle but all in vain and Opposite Parties  flatly refused to obey terms and conditions of said policy. The Complainant had sent legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 19.12.22 through registered post but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to give the approval to the Complainant qua the cost of repair of the said vehicle, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 under said policy and further to pay compensation/claim/damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Complainant further prayed for Rs. 90,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- as litigation expenses, Rs. 50,000/- towards the parts removed during the possession of the said vehicle.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 22.05.23.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.1 while admitting to have issued the subject Insurance Policy to the Complainant, raised preliminary objections that the Complainant has misrepresented the facts and it is a capse of non-disclosure of true facts. It is contended that during investigation it was found that the Complainant-insured had given wrong information about occupant’s details, place and time of accident and Complainant has not lodged any F.I.R. It is further contended as per the surveyor’s report, the damages claimed by the Complainant were old and accumulated. It is submitted that the Complainant’s claim was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and Opposite Party No.1 has no liability towards Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Rohan Mishra, Manager Legal of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 has been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have perused the file including the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that her vehicle which was duly insured with Opposite Party No.1, got damaged in an accident and Opposite Party No.2, the workshop gave an estimate of Rs. 1,09,635/- to Complainant towards repairs. Opposite Party No.1 conducted the survey and inspected the vehicle but Opposite Party No.  did not give approval to Opposite Party No.2 towards the repairing of the said vehicle. Therefore, without approval of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 has not touched the said vehicle for repairing. The Complainant’s claim was rejected the claim with remarks “misrepresented the material facts (tried to hide material facts)” while the Complainant disclosed everything pertaining to the said vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 was provided.  It is also alleged that Opposite Party No.2 also removed many essential parts from the vehicle. As the Complainant brought her vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 and tried to start but same was not started on its original position which surprised the Complainant as Opposite Party No.2 has defected the vehicle during the possession of the same. Hence, deficiency on the part of both the parties.
9. On the other hand, it is the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has misrepresented the facts and during investigation it was found that the Complainant-insured had given wrong information about occupant’s details, place and time of accident and Complainant has not lodged any F.I.R. It is further contended as per the surveyor’s report; the damages claimed by the Complainant were old and accumulated. It is submitted that the Complainant’s claim was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and Opposite Party No.1 has no liability towards Complainant.
10. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant’s vehicle was duly insured with Opposite Party No.1 under an OD policy. The Complainant has filed a Vehicle Pick up slip and copy of estimate towards repairs issued by Opposite Party      No. 2. The Opposite Party No.1 has contended that during investigation it was found that the Complainant-insured had given wrong information about occupant’s details, place and time of accident and Complainant has not lodged any F.I.R. It is further contended by Opposite Party No.1 that as per the surveyor’s report; the damages claimed by the Complainant were old and accumulated.
11. Perusal of material on record shows that Opposite Party No.1 has not led any evidence in support of its contention whatsoever that Complainant has provided wrong details of accident and damages claimed were old and accumulated, hence, their contention are rejected. So far as absence of FIR is concerned, in our considered view, First Information Report is not required such cases of claim for vehicle damages if the accident is not an offence. We also note that the Opposite Party No.1 has nowhere controverted the estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,09,635/- issued by Opposite Party No.2 and relied upon by the Complainant. Opposite Party has neither filed any surveyor’s report/ investigation report nor controverted the estimate of repairs issued by Opposite Party No.2, hence, Opposite Party No.1 becomes liable towards Complainant to pay the valid claim under a valid policy.
12. The Complainant has also alleged that Opposite Party No.2 also removed many essential parts from the vehicle and rendered the vehicle defective. Since, the Complainant has not led any evidence to this effect, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
13.  Since, Opposite Party No.1 has failed to establish its defence that the Complainant has misrepresented the facts and also has not controverted the estimate relied upon by the Complainant, the Complainant’s version on oath is to be believed as true. We find Opposite Party No.1 liable to pay to the Complainant the own damage claim to the tune of Rs. 1,09,635/-.
14.  In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party No.1 has committed deficiency in services towards Complainant by not paying the Complainant’s genuine claim during the subsistence of valid policy.
15. Thus, the present complaint is allowed and Opposite Party No.1 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 1,09,635/-towards own Damage claim along with @9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay  Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with 9 % interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
16. Order announced on 08.11.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President