District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 504/2021.
Date of Institution:28.09.2021.
Date of Order: 08.02.2023.
Rajeev Parashar son of Shri Ravinder Dev Parashar, resident of H.No. DB-71, Railway Station Road, Palwal, Shiv Colony Palwal, presently residing at House No. 2395, sEctor-9, Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance co. Ltd., First floor, SCO 17, Sector-16, Faridabad – 121002 Distt. Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited, office at House 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: Sh. Arun Parashar, 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 the owner of the vehicle No. HR-29-AK/1717 Model Ecosports 1.0L, body SUB CC 999, manufacturing year 2015, Chassis No. MAJAXXMRKAFS66348, Engine NO. FS66348 total IDV of Rs.42,25,000/- under the policy NO. 3001/203076283/00/000 under the insurance of opposite parties of the said car from 09.08.2020 upto 8.8.2021. On 23.01.2021 when the complainant driving the said vehicle which was owned by him bearing HR-29-AK/1717 from Mathura Road to Faridabad said in his correct side with normal speed and when he cross the Ballabgarh and Agra Canal after the flyover in front of SBI branch suddenly a cow come in front of the said vehicle and tried to save the said car the complainant taken the break and the said vehicle touch with divider of the road and turned down but the complainant remain safe and with the public help he come out from the said vehicle and later on he informed to P.S.Chowki, Sector-8, Faridabad regarding the said incident and DD No. 12 dated 24.01.2021 had been lodged by the said concerned policy regarding the said incident. The complainant informed the insurance company regarding the said matter and filed the online claim NO. MOT10686399 to repair the said vehicle from Janta Automobile, Shop No. R-156, NIT, Faridabad, Behind Mata Temple, Tikona Park Faridabad with the permission of opposite parties after filing the online claim which had been decided by the opposite party on dated 2.3.2021 to pay Rs.50,360/- online through NEFT had been deposit in the account of Canara Bank in the name of the complainant and surveyor inspecting the vehicle on 27.01.2021.. The complainant spent the amount of Rs.1,80,800/- to repair the said vehicle from the said automobile and after complete the work, the complainant paid Rs.1,80,800/- to said Janta Automobile copy of bill dated 13.04.2021 was hereby attached. In which complete work also shown which had been done by the said automobile and the said bill had been paid by the complainant after completion the work on dated 12.4.2021 and the opposite parties had only paid the amount of Rs.50,360/- only in which more amount had been paid by the complainant in the said vehicle to repair its. The opposite parties not paid the remaining amounts which was made out near about Rs.1,30,000/- to recover the opposite parties which had already paid by the complainant to said automobile. The complainant asked the opposite parties several times to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant with interest but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. 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 Rs1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- 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 at the very threshold the present complaint, the complaint was not maintainable, reason being, the insurance company had already released the payable claim amount to the complainant as Rs.50360/- vide NEFT dated 2.3.2021 in full & final settlement. The complainant neither had any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. It was submitted that the complainant-insured had lodged his own damage claim as to insured vehicle with the insurance company by annexing the repair for amount to Rs.192050/- vide invoice dated 27.02.2021 issued by Janta Automobile and for which the insurance company had deputed an independent surveyor viz. Jitendera Katara so as to assess the loss, in turn after survey, the said surveyor had submitted his survey report, whereby assessed the payable loss as Rs.50,360/-, resultantly, the insurance company had already released the payable claim amount to the complainant as Rs.50360/- vide NEFT dated 2.3.2021 in full & final settlement. 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– ICICI Lombard Insurance Company etc. with the prayer to: a) pay an amount of Rs1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- 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.CW1/A – affidavit of Rajeev Parashar, Ex.C1 – RC,, Ex.C2 – driving licence,, , Ex.C3 – Motor closed claims, Ex.C-4 – claim status, Ex.C5 – wardsapp message, Ex.C6 – email, Ex.C7 – claim status, Ex.C8 - adhaar card of Rajeev Parashar, Ex.C-9 – pan card, Ex.C-10 – details of ECO Sport, Ex.C-11 – DDR, Ex.C-12 – letter dated 06.08.2020 regarding risk assumption letter, Ex.C-13 – RC.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Atalanta Chakrabarti, Manager (Legal), M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th floor, Red Fort Capital Parsvnath Tower, Bhai Veer Singh marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, Ex.R1 –RC,Ex.R-2 - letter dated 06.08.2020,,Ex.R03 – DDR,, Ex.R-4 – Claim intimation sheet,, Ex.R-5 – claim form for motor vehicle, Ex.R-6 – details of ECO Sports, Ex.R-7 – survey report, Ex.R-8 – assessment of loss.
6. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with Own Damage claim of Eco Sports . As per evidence led by the complainant the estimated amount of Rs.1,80,000/- which was of private mechanic and not by the authorized workshop. In this regard, complainant has led in his evidence Ex.C-1 to C-13.
On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties has also submitted the estimate given by the complainant, Ex.R7 surveyor report and Ex.R8 the assessment of loss. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite parties stated at Bar that opposite parties have already released the amount of Rs.50,360/- through NEFT which was assessed by the surveyor vide Ex.R7 & R8. Counsel for the complainant agitated on this ground that there is no consent of the complainant in this regard. Rs.50,360/- was transferred through NEFT by the opposite parties without permission of the complainant. Only the cancelled cheque was given to the opposite parties for demanding the documents for the claim purpose.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the total loss of the complainant is Rs.1,80,000/- vide Ex.C-10 and the opposite parties have only transferred Rs.50,360/- through NEFT in the account of the complainant. No doubt, the workshop i.e Janta Automobile is not the authorized dealer of the Eco Sports. As per the assessment given by the surveyor vide Ex.R-7 is on the lower side. There are unseen also. The bill was submitted by the complainant. Keeping in view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that it should be 50% of the estimated amount given by the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed. The details are as under:
Details:
Estimate amount of the damage vehicle in question : Rs.1,80,000/-
(Ex.C-10)
Deduction 50% of the estimated amount of the : - Rs. 90,000/-
Damaged vehicle in question :
To be paid by the opposite parties : Rs. 90,000/-
Opposite parties already paid through NEFT : - Rs. 50, 360/-
In the account of the complainant.
Balance amount. : Rs. 39,640/-
8. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.39,640/- alongwith 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. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 08.02.2023 (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.
