Orissa

Debagarh

CC/11/2018

Prakash Patra, S/O-Budhuram Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DEOGARH.

C.C. NO. 11/2018

Present- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W)

and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Prakash Patra,

S/O- Budhuram Patra,

R/O- Taanlasahi,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                               ….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager,

          ICICI Lombard General Insurance CO. Ltd,

    Dist-Sambalpur(Orissa).

2. The Branch Manager,

          ICICI Lombard General Insurance CO. Ltd,

          Plot No-29,Third Floor,Anuj Building,

         Satya Nagar,Bhubaneswar(Orissa).

3. The Authorised Maruti Service Delear,

         Odessy Motors Pvt. Ltd,

         NH-6 Ainthapali,Sambalpur(Orissa).                                                   ….Opp. Parties.

 

               Counsel for the parties :

               For the Complainant :        Nemo.

               For Opp. Parties-1 &2 :     None.

               For Opp. Party-3                 Sri.S.K.Samal, Sri S.Biswal, Advocate.     

 

DATE OF HEARING :07.11.2019, DATE OF ORDER : 14.11.2019

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-Brief fact of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one Maruti Swift Dezire from the O.P-3 vide Chassis No- MA3EJKD1S000783946 and Engine No- K12MN16 34230. When the said Car met with an accident on dtd. 23.11.2017, the Complainant made a Station Dairy entry of the matter in Deogarh Police Station. He intimated the matter to the O.P-3 who on dtd.25.11.2017 brought the Car to the Service station at Sambalpur and prepared a job Card and approval was given to do the repair/replacement works. As the Complainant has got the Car insured by the O.P-1 which was valid up to 17^th November 2017, he intimated to the O.P-1 regarding the accident. A survey team from Cuttack Office came and prepared a report on the damaged parts at the garage of the O.P-3 and assured to deliver the car within 15-20 days. But he said car was remained in idle condition in the work shop of the O.P-3 for a long time awaiting the approval of the O.P-1 & 2. Later on the O.P-1 denied settling the claim with a reason that the Complainant has dismantled the Car elsewhere before the same is brought to the garage of O.P-3, so warranty will not be covered. The Complainant has been harassed by the O.Ps in spite of having valid insurance. But as per the version of the Complainant the Car was directly shifted to the garage of the O.P-3 from the spot of accident after having contact with the O.P-3, so there is no question of dismantling the same. Again the complainant stated that the service van from O.P-3 came to the accident spot and dismantled some parts for convenience in towing. The damage has been estimated to Rs.2,80,000/- to make the Car roadworthy and the Complainant have to pay for it if the claim is not settled by the O.P-1 & 2.  But according the O.P-3, he has shifted the Car to his workshop from the spot and during the time of receiving the Car the items like radiator, condenser, fan shroud, front hood, head lamp, upper member engine mounting bolt were kept on the front side of the vehicle and the photographs of the same are with the O.P-3. He has written letter to seek approval for repairing works from the O.P-1, who has denied to settle the claim and alleged that the Car has been dismantled elsewhere before brought to the garage. But the O.P-3 is ready to repair the said car after assessment of damages by the O.P-1 & 2 and payment made by them.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and material available on the records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer as he has purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire from the O.P-3 and get the Car insured with the O.P-1 & 2.  The e-mail sent by the O.P-1 on dtd. 26.12.2017 to the O.P-3 reflects that the Complainant confirmed that “the Maruti Service Van had came from O.P-3 and they dismantled and towed the Car to the garage” and the O.P-1 sought it’s confirmation from the O.P-3. The O.P-3 strongly denied the above facts and stated to have received the vehicle in as it is condition and claims to have retained the photographs of the accident Car but he has not produced it as evidence with his written statements. Further the O.P-3 while receiving the Car at his garage, neither asked the Complainant nor mentioned anything about the dismantling of parts by the Complainant. But according to the Complainant as the Car was dashed by its front side with a truck and the bonnet is completely twisted over the internal parts. So the O.P-3 for their convenience has dismantled the Car to facilitate the towing. The O.P-3 has not communicated the matter with a clean hand to the O.P-1 & 2 and suppressed the fact. Again the O.P-3 has collaboration with the O.P-1 & 2 for which he has got the Car insured through the O.P-1 & 2 as usually he does. Hence there existed an understanding and reliance between them to provide a better service to the customers. The O.Ps have claimed that the Complainant has performed  “UNINFORMED REPAIR” i.e any repairs made to any vehicle without notifying the insurance company, will not be covered under  motor insurance policy. In the event of an accident, it is obligated to inform the insurance provider about all the damages to get approval for the claim made. In such a scenario, a designated inspection officer takes stock of the damages and only then the repairs and the claim process begins. It is true that the damaged vehicle should be dismantled in front of the surveyor. In a situation where it was dismantled before arrival of the surveyor, it is to be ascertained whether the principle of Res ipsa loquitor will apply on seeing the damaged/dismantled portion of the vehicle. No valid reason was given by the insurer as to how the dismantling of the vehicle has technically affected the assessing of loss/damage to the vehicle. Copy of the survey report should have been submitted, irrespective of the fact whether the claim was payable or not. Moreover, from the claim rejection letter it was observed that the claim was rejected as no opportunity was given to the insurer to assess the loss.  Again according to the verdict of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) “Insurance company shall reject claim on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry”y. The O.P-1 & 2 knowingly repudiated the claim to shift the burden to the Complainant with a false plea to escape from the liability of claim settlement. So the O.P-1,2 & 3 has committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s 2(1)(g) and “Unfair Trade Practice” u/s 2(1)( r) to the Complainant according to the Consumer .Protection Act-1986. Hence we order as under:-

 

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to accept and settle the insurance claim and pay the amount as per the estimate. Further the O.P-1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand )only  as compensation along with 12% interest p.a. from the date of repudiation till payment for the damages sustained by the complainant in respect of his Car, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand ) for mental agony of the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand ) as litigation expenses. All the above direction are to be complied within 30 (Thirty) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.          

 

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 14^th day of November-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

 

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree                                             I agree

 

 

Member(W)                                 Member                                          President              

Dictated & Corrected

by me,

 

 

President