Bihar

StateCommission

A/45/2019

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Chandra Narayan

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BIHAR, PATNA
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/45/2019
( Date of Filing : 05 Feb 2019 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District )
 
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Swarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary & Ors.
Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary S/O - Late Kedar Tiwari, R/O - Mohalla - Civil Lines, Sasaram, P.O. - Sasram, P.S. Sasaram (Model), District - Rohras (Sasaram), Bihar
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  MISS GITA VERMA PRESIDING MEMBER
  MR. RAJ KUMAR PANDEY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 19 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Dated: 19.02.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

 

Order

 

  1. This appeal has been filed by O.Ps of complaint no. 66 of 2014 against the order dated 29.11.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtas by which the complaint was allowed and they were ordered to pay to the complainant Rs. 7,38,497/- as claim amount and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within two months of date of order failing which to pay the same with 4% interest till the date of payment.
  2. The case of complainant in short is that he purchased a Mahindra Quanto motor vehicle, registration no. BR-24P-4761 with financial assistance of Indus Ind Bank, Patna from Sun Shine Autos Pvt. Ltd. and got it insured with O.Ps for the period 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2013. The vehicle suffered an accident on 29.04.2013 at G.T. Road at a place 3 Kms east of Mohania for which Mohania PS case no. 127 of 2013 was registered. The complainant, his wife and two minor sons were also sitting in that vehicle. They and their driver sustained serious injuries in that accident. They were admitted into hospital. After discharge from hospital the complainant gave intimation about the accident to the staffs of Sun Shine Autos Pvt. Ltd. who has tied up with O.P. no. 1. They assured the complainant that they would send information about the accident to the O.Ps. The vehicle was seized by police and after release from police custody was taken to a garage with the help of crane. The complainant submitted duly filled claim form in the office of M/s Sun Shine Autos Pvt. Ltd. on 22.05.2013 with necessary papers and they assured that he would get the amount to total loss incurred over the repair of his vehicle. The garage gave estimate of Rs. 9,79,280.01/- for the repair of vehicle. He submitted it in the office of O.P. no. 1 but even after the repair of vehicle the O.Ps did not settled his clam even after lapse of about one and half years and they closed the file on the ground that claim had been filed after 72 days of the accident. Then he filed the complaint.
  3. The O.Ps appeared and contested the claim by filing a written statement in which they stated on various grounds that the complainant was not entitled to get the claim because the claim had been filed after a lapse of 72 days from the date of accident and necessary papers were not filed by the complainant. So, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
  4. Heard leaned lawyers for both parties and perused the record.
  5. It appears from para no. 5 of the impugned order that the O.Ps had filed their surveyor’s report before the District Forum as ext. A/2. It appears from this documentary evidence that the O.Ps had deputed a qualified surveyor who had examined and inspected the damaged vehicle of complainant and had reported to them that the claim was fit to be allowed to the extent of Rs. 4,42,282/- only. Therefore, it is found and held that the O.Ps are not at all justified in rejecting the claim outright. So, far delay in filing the claim is concerned it is established by the oral and documentary evidences of the complainant that he handed over the claim petition to the staffs of M/s Sun Shine Autos Pvt. Ltd. on 22.05.2013 i.e only after 23 days of the accident. As stated earlier the accident had occurred on 29.04.2013 and the aforesaid seller of vehicle had tie up with O.Ps. So, it is found that the delay in sending the claim petition to the O.Ps was not caused by the complainant rather it was caused by the aforesaid seller and for that lapse the complainant should not be allowed to suffer.
  6. Having considered the aforesaid facts we find and hold that the complainant is entitled to get the claim to the extent of Rs. 4,42,282/- only as reported by the surveyor.
  7. Accordingly, the order of District Forum is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. The appellant-O.Ps are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,42,282/- only with 8% per annum interest thereon w.e.f 22.05.2013 within two months besides the litigation cost awared by the District Forum and Rs. 20,000/- only as cost of this appeal.

 

 

Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey                                                                                           Miss Gita Verma

 (Member)                                                                                                              (Judicial Member)

 

Md. Fariduzzama

 

 

 
 
[ MISS GITA VERMA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ MR. RAJ KUMAR PANDEY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.