DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 456/2012
Date of Institution 06/11/2012
Order reserved 23/09/2016
Date of Order 26/09/2016
In matter of
Mr Dasharath Kumar, adult
S/o Sh Shyam Lal
R/o- 17H/532, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad UP ……………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Swarup Motors Pvt Ltd
Through its Manager
9-Bharti Artist Colony,
Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092
2-The Branch Manager
ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd
23, Barakhamba Road
Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001
3- The Sr Branch Manager
ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Co. Ltd
HO- Zenith House, Khadi Marg, Opp. Race Course,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 ……………………………………………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate………………………………….Puneet Tandon
Opponent 1-/Swarop Motors………………………….Prashant Jain
Opponent 2/ ICICI Lumbard ,Delhi Office………..Arun Sharma
Opponent 3/ICICI LUmbard HO……………………….S K Sharma & others
Quorum ………………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Smt Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief- This complaint was dismissed by this Forum on the ground of delay in ref to policy terms and conditions and on limitation to file the complaint which was restored by the Honble State Commission on the ground of giving legal notice by complainant as a ground of cause of action, and with the direction for considering case as a fresh, as per the law.
Facts of the case
Complainant purchased a two wheeler vide registered no. DL7SBF-4218 from OP1 on dated 26/10/2009 and was insured from OP2 vide its policy no. 3005/2000024130/0000006889 which was valid from 26/10/2009 to 25/10/2010. The said vehicle/two wheeler got accident on 17/01/2010 at Mathura and was totally damaged. Complainant brought the vehicle at Bridge Auto at Bhuteshwar road, Mathura on 19/01/2010 for repair and informed local police station at Mathura on 19/01/2010 besides informing to OP3.
The rough estimate of repair was given by auto workshop for a sum of Rs 41,408/-The said vehicle was repaired by complainant of his own. After repair, complainant gave information to OP3 through speed post on 06/02/2010. When complainant did not get the response from OP3, sent a legal notice to OP3 on 14/03/2012, but his claim was not settled. Hence, he filed this complaint claiming refund of amount paid for repair of vehicle a sum of Rs 41,408/-and compensation of a sum of Rs 50,000/- with litigation charges Rs 11,000/-
Notices were served. OPs put up their appearance and submitted their written statement.
OP1 stated that the said two wheeler was sold by them to complainant and had valid insurance from OP2. OP1 stated that the incident of accident which occurred at Mathura, was intimated to OP3, so OP1 had no role in claim process. It was the responsibility of OP2 and 3 to consider the claim as per his policy terms and condition. Hence, OP1 prayed for deletion from the array of parties. OP2 and OP3 jointly submitted their written statement. It was admitted that the said vehicle had valid insurance and got accident, as per the written information received by OPs which was sent on 06/02/2010. Thereafter, complainant got repaired his vehicle of his own without getting surveyed by them. The intimation sent by complainant was after 21 days delay, hence in delay in informing OPs beyond 48 days amounts violation of policy terms and conditions.
Also as per complainant, the intimation was sent to OP3 on 19/01/2010, had not given any claim no. which intimated to the insured/claimant. So, complainant had not disclosed correct facts before OPs. Thus, the complaint be dismissed. Rejoinder and evidences were filed on affidavit which were on record.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved which was delivered on 31/10/2013. The complaint was dismissed on the ground of delay which was more than 15 months and was against Sec. 24A of Consumer Protection Act.
Aggrieved by the order of this Forum, complainant filed appeal before Honble State Commission, Delhi which was decided on 04/03/2014 in favor of complainant and set aside the order.
Honble State Commission took merit of legal notice sent by complainant on 14/03/2012. This fact was considered as the date of cause of action and heed that the complaint was filed within limitation. Hence, the case was remanded to this Forum to decide the case on merits and complainant was directed to appear on 30/07/2014.
Taking the note of the order of Honble State Commission, notices were sent and OPs re submitted their written statements and evidences on affidavit. OPs also submitted their written arguments. Complainant submitted that all the evidences were on record and do not wish to submit again.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
It has been argued on behalf of OP1 that no relief was claimed against them, as there was no deficiency of service on their part. Counsel for OP2 and OP3 have argued that the complainant did not make any complaint with the police station at the time of accident, further, he did not inform to the insurance company well in time nor submitted the documents.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that evidence on record was sufficient to show that there was deficiency on the part of OPs.
To appreciate the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the complaint itself. If the complaint is perused, it is noticed that nowhere in the complaint, the complainant has averred any deficiency on the part of OP1 and OP2. The fact that no deficiency has been averred on the part of OP1 and OP2, the question of any liability of OP1 and OP2 does not arise. The deficiency, if any, has been averred against OP3.
The plea taken on behalf of OP3 was that there has been delay of 21 days in informing the insurance company. The law is well settled that the insurance company have to be informed promptly. The fact that the insurance company has been informed after a delay of 21 days, certainly no case of deficiency was made out against OP3 also. It has further been stated during the course of arguments that the complainant did not file the documents, which were required to assess the claim of the complainant. Not only that, the surveyor assessed the liability of insurance company as per terms and conditions of the policy to the tune of Rs. 21,267/-, which the company was willing to make. The fact that the surveyor have assessed the liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs. 21,267/-, even if there has been a delay of 21 days, the liability assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs. 21,267/- have to be paid by the insurance company.
In view of the above, we direct the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 21,267/-. We further direct that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be paid towards compensation and cost of litigation. The awarded amount be paid within a period of 60 days. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.
The copy of order be sent to the parties as per the rules.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur (Dr) P N Tiwari Member Member
Sh. Sukhdev Singh
President
