Delhi

New Delhi

CC/92/2009

Sachin Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/92/09                         Dated:

 

In the matter of:

SH. SACHIN GOEL

S/O SH. RAGHUNANDAN GOEL,

R/O 17-B, SADH NAGAR,

PALAM COLONY,

NEW DELHI-110045

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

BIRLA TOWERS,

5^TH FLOOR, 25 BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

SUHRIT HYUNDAI

SUHRIT SRVICES PVT. LTD.,

C-97, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-II, MAYAPURI,

NEW DELHI-110064

 

MGF HYUNDAI

MGF AUTOMOBILES LTD.,

B-91, 92, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110064

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

 

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

The complaint is regarding deficiency in service on settlement of claim by OP 1 and

The complainant’s vehicle Santro bearing Registration No. DL 3AC AP 8595 was  insured with OP-1 from 21.11.08 to 20.11.09.  The vehicle had an accident on 23.11.08 and FIR was registered.  The accidental vehicle was seized by investigating officer and later released on superdori on 30.11.08.  The complainant took the vehicle to OP-2 for repair on 09.12.08 but OP-2 did not repair the same under some pretext or other.  The complainant thereafter took the vehicle to  OP-3 on 19.12.08.  A receipt was also issued on 30.12.08 by OP-3 for an advance payment of Rs.15000/- for the difference on cashless claim and actual bill.

The complainant again visited OP 3 on 14.1.08 and was handed over a bill of Rs.79,231/- and was told that claim was not passed by OP-1.  The complaniant, then filed the present complaint on 16.1.09.

OP-1 in its reply stated that claim has been accepted and an amount of Rs.66,413/- had been duly paid to OP-3 within 40 days from date of claim.

OP-3 in its reply states that additional expense of Rs.6255/- was incurred as wind shield was replaced on request of complainant.  OP-3 further  admitted  that OP-1 has paid an amount of Rs.66,413/- towards settlement of claim on 16.1.09 which was intimated to complaint vide letter dated 27.1.09 annexed on R-4.  OP 3 further claimed that their later bill was Rs.79231+Rs.6255-Rs.66413/- and as such Rs.4,073/- is due from complainant.

Perusal of record file reveals that OP-3 was directed to hand over the vehicle on 29.1.09.  The complaint on 04.3.10 filed the evidence wherein he stated that though the delivery was taken on 30.1.09 but vehicle was not repaired in a proper manner.  He had annexed photographs detailing the defects.

OP-1 had settled the claim as admitted by OP-3.  However, OP-3, despite charging Rs.15000/- extra from complainant for repair of vehicle had handed it over in a shoddy state with dents and scratches visible on the body of car as established by photographs annexed.

OP-3 has not refuted the said photographs nor given any cogent reason explaining the defects visibly manifest on the vehicle.

We therefore hold OP 3 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay Rs.50000/- along with 9% interest from date of delivery to realization as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 11.02.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)               (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                                 MEMBER