In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. - 126 of 2012

Santosh Kumar.... complainant

                                    Vs
General Manager, ICICI Lombard, General Insurance and other.... Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:-18.07.2018                        Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

                                                ORDER

The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the ICICI Lombard for deficiency in service as the opposite parties are not accepting the claim of the complainant for his damaged vehicle in accident according to estimated cost claimed total amount 13,67,2.In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle  namely PORCLIN white Indigo ECS LX, B 54(25 KMPL), Chasis number

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

MAT60/ before the opposite parties for releasing the amount for preparing the vehicle Opposite party did not take care. Opposite Party also sent legal notice to the Opposite party on 23 August

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

The complainant has sought reliefs as to declare that the Opposite party committed deficiency in service in not considering the claim the complainant and he be ordered to pay ₹3. On notice opposite party appeared and filed their Written Statement. It has been submitted by the opposite parties that admittedly the complainant obtained a policy from his office for a period of 31 January vehicle. But as per Complainant front part of vehicle was damaged.

After alleged loss of complainant vehicle the opposite party deputed a surveyor Er. Anil Kumar who after detail survey submitted his final report on 20 June

                                                           CC.No.-126 of 2012

his car ₹ 8,62,                              4. In support of the cases both parties have filed Evidences on affidavit and relevant documents.

                              5. Main point of determination before this Court is what is actual cost of repairing of the vehicle in question and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

                               6. There is not dispute regarding the vehicle of the complainant, registration number BR

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

the actual cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle.
Under such circumstances it is justified to direct the opposite parties to get repaired the damaged vehicle of the complainant in any authorized service centre of Tata Motors in Gaya or in any other place or in the presence of any authorized personnel of Opposite Parties the complainant may get repaired the damaged vehicle in any authorized service centre of Tata Motors at Gaya or any other place. Bill of repairing cost of the vehicle should be directly sent to the opposite parties to be paid. The delay in the settlement of claim of the complainant he has got mentally and physically harassment and he has also got financial lost by not running the car on road. It is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so they are directed to pay ₹ 20,

                                                           CC.No.-126 of 2012

amount and in case of disobedience of the court order for none repairing the said vehicle the complainant is entitled to claim for damage and it will be at a liberty to get repaired his vehicle and present the bill before the court to pay the same by the opposite Parties through the process of cost.

             Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                          President

Sunita Kumari              Syed Mohtashim Akhtar         Ramesh Chandra Singh

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. - 126 of 2012

Santosh Kumar.... complainant

                                    Vs
General Manager, ICICI Lombard, General Insurance and other.... Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:-18.07.2018                        Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

                                                ORDER

The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the ICICI Lombard for deficiency in service as the opposite parties are not accepting the claim of the complainant for his damaged vehicle in accident according to estimated cost claimed total amount 13,67,2.In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle  namely PORCLIN white Indigo ECS LX, B 54(25 KMPL), Chasis number

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

MAT60/ before the opposite parties for releasing the amount for preparing the vehicle Opposite party did not take care. Opposite Party also sent legal notice to the Opposite party on 23 August

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

The complainant has sought reliefs as to declare that the Opposite party committed deficiency in service in not considering the claim the complainant and he be ordered to pay ₹3. On notice opposite party appeared and filed their Written Statement. It has been submitted by the opposite parties that admittedly the complainant obtained a policy from his office for a period of 31 January vehicle. But as per Complainant front part of vehicle was damaged.

After alleged loss of complainant vehicle the opposite party deputed a surveyor Er. Anil Kumar who after detail survey submitted his final report on 20 June

                                                           CC.No.-126 of 2012

his car ₹ 8,62,                              4. In support of the cases both parties have filed Evidences on affidavit and relevant documents.

                              5. Main point of determination before this Court is what is actual cost of repairing of the vehicle in question and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

                               6. There is not dispute regarding the vehicle of the complainant, registration number BR

                                                          CC.No.-126 of 2012

the actual cost of repairing of the damaged vehicle.
Under such circumstances it is justified to direct the opposite parties to get repaired the damaged vehicle of the complainant in any authorized service centre of Tata Motors in Gaya or in any other place or in the presence of any authorized personnel of Opposite Parties the complainant may get repaired the damaged vehicle in any authorized service centre of Tata Motors at Gaya or any other place. Bill of repairing cost of the vehicle should be directly sent to the opposite parties to be paid. The delay in the settlement of claim of the complainant he has got mentally and physically harassment and he has also got financial lost by not running the car on road. It is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so they are directed to pay ₹ 20,

                                                           CC.No.-126 of 2012

amount and in case of disobedience of the court order for none repairing the said vehicle the complainant is entitled to claim for damage and it will be at a liberty to get repaired his vehicle and present the bill before the court to pay the same by the opposite Parties through the process of cost.

             Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                          President

Sunita Kumari              Syed Mohtashim Akhtar         Ramesh Chandra Singh