Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 348
Instituted on: 17.06.2021
Decided on: 18.11.2024
Pawan Kumar (aged 46 years) S/o Sh. Maha Singh, R/o H. No. 580, VPO Bohar, Rohtak.
…………….Complainant
Vs
- The Manager/claim Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near SiddiVinayak Temper, Pravhadavi, Mumbai-400025.
- The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 5th Floor. Metro Polich Mall, Near Midtown Hotel, Delhi Road, Hissar- 125001.
..…Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for the Opposite party no.1 (Opposite parties already exparte vide order dated 14.09.2021 & 29.07.2022).
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint, as per the complainant, are that he had purchased a policy bearing no.3001/176662938/00/000 dated 31.07.2019 and insured his car bearing registration no. HR-12AG-1189 from the opposite parties. Unfortunately, on 16.06.2020,when the said car was being driven by the nephew of the complainant, near village Gadhi, another car came very fast from front side and take a wrong turn. To avoid the accident, the driver of the car of the complainant took a turn and due to overturning and striking with a wall,the car got damaged. On next day, the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties and submitted the relevant documents under claim no. MOT09966117. As per the report of mechanic, there was ‘total loss’ to the said car. The complainant requested many times to the opposite parties for payment but they deliberately ignored the complainant and till today the online status of claim is shown ‘under process’ while there was a ‘total loss’ to the said vehicle. Opposite parties told the complainant that his case has been declared as ‘No Claim”. Lastly on 20.03.2021, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but no reply was received by him or by his counsel till date. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the value of insured goods i.e. Rs.11,31,774/-, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses, besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit, in favour of the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties through registered pos. But the same were not received back either served or unserved. As such, opposite party no. 1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.09.2021 and 29.07.2022 of this Commission respectively.
3. In the exparte evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 and closed the same on 22.09.2022. Thereafter, an application for additional evidence was also moved on behalf of complainant, which was also allowed and accordingly the learned counsel for the complainant had tendered documents Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-10 in his additional evidence and closed the same on 04.05.2023.
4. During the course of arguments, Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate appeared alongwith an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 14.09.2021 passed against opposite party no.1 and after hearing upon the same, this Commission dismissed the above application vide order dated 13.06.2024. However, the counsel for the opposite party no.1 has submitted his written arguments on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 06.11.2024 stating therein that vehicle in question was never declared as Total Loss. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party because the vehicle in question was hypothecated and financed with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Rohtak, which was a necessary and proper party but the same was not impleaded as party to the present complaint. During the process of survey of the insured vehicle, it was observed that the complainant had tried to hide the material facts about loss which amounts to misrepresentation of facts and thus the claim of complaint was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 27.09.2020. The Car in question bearing registration no. HR-12AG-1189 was insured for the period 31.07.2019 to 30.07.2020 for IDV of Rs.11,31,774/- vide policy no. 3001/176662938/00/000 and after receiving the intimation of accident on 16.06.2020 from the complainant, the claim was registered, processed, surveyed and investigated. It is alleged that damages of the vehicle in question were assessed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.8,65,465/-. As the damage in vehicle were not found relevant with cause of loss as described by the complainant in the claim form and both sides of the vehicle in question were found intact, hence, certain documents were demanded from the complainant vide request letter dated 28.07.2020 but he failed to give any satisfactory reply. The claim of complainant has been rightly repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 27.09.2020 and there has been no fault, negligence or deficiency in the services on the part opposite party/company. Accordingly the counsel for the party no.1 submitted that the company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant, perused the documents placed on record as well as written submissions on behalf of opposite party and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, therespondents only filed written submission before this Commission on dated 06.11.2024. Earlier they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.09.2021 and 29.07.2022 of this Commission respectively. The perusal of written submission shows that all the contents have been mentioned in this written submission i.e. the copy of survey report, detail of claim form and letter issued to the complainant by the surveyor Sh. Hemant Kumar Sharma. We have minutely perused the written submissions as well as documents placed on record by the complainant. In this complaint the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 27.09.2020 on the ground mentioned below”-
“Misrepresentation of facts, cause of loss not justify with existing damages on vehicle and complainant had tried to hide the material facts about loss. Claimed damages not matching with loss description mentioned in claim form & try to hide the material fact”. As per the written submissions filed by the respondent, the complainant has not submitted some clarifications and documents with the insurance company or with the surveyor. Regarding this fact surveyor wrote a letter dated 28.07.2020 to the complainant. After perusal of the documents we came into the conclusion that no claim letter was issued on 27.09.2020 i.e. after the letter dated 28.07.2020. Meaning thereby the insurance company after considering all the facts and circumstances and after considering the documents or clarifications submitted by the complainant with the insurance company, decided the claim of the complainant. Insurance company failed to place on record any document with the written submissionsthat ‘cause of loss not matching with existing damages on vehicle’. Any technical report or survey report to prove that the damages in the vehicle in question are not co-related with the cause of loss mentioned in the claim form. Hence the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on false and flimsy grounds and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As per policy Ex.C2, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1131734/- and as per the written submissions filed by the opposite parties, the loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.865465/-. The 75% of IDV comes to Rs.843823/-. So the vehicle comes under the category of total loss. As such, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1000000/- i.e. (IDV of vehicle(Rs.1131734/- after deducting the salvage value which we have assessed as Rs.131734/-).It is also observed that as per copy of RC Ex.C1, the vehicle in question is hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1000000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.04.2023 till its realisation, to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for settlement of loan account of the complainant. It is also directed that after settlement of loan account with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to send a letter to RTO for cancellation of R.C within 15 days. Complainant is further directed not to use the vehicle in any manner and not to ply the same on road.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
