Delhi

North East

CC/47/2017

VIKAS RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOM.GIC - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

 

                                                   Complaint Case No. 47/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

 

	Sh. Vikas Rana S/o Sh. Prem Pal Singh R/o H.No. E-684, Sector-11, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. 201009	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ist Floor, 101, DDA Market, J & K Block, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi-110095,Through its Manager       M/s Motor Magic Auto Zone, 4/29-A, Site-IV, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. Through its Manager	Opposite Party No.1             Opposite Party No.2

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

02.02.17 18.10.22 10.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant           

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant got insured his vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 vide policy no. 3001/115386786/00B00 for period 12.04.16 to 11.04.17 and Rs. 12,139/-was paid to Opposite Party and the value of the said vehicle was taken as Rs. 4,39,242/-. The Complainant stated that on 27.04.16 the vehicle in question met with a fatal accident and in that accident two person were died and Complainant and one other got injured. At the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Complainant who got registered DD in Police Station Kavi Nagar on 09.05.16. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter survey was conducted by Mr. Amit Kumar, surveyor of Opposite Party No.1. The vehicle in question was recovered from Police Station Kavi Nagar and taken in custody of Complainant on 12.05.16 by making an application in Kavi Nagar Police Station. The Complainant stated that as per instructions of Opposite Party No.1 through email dated 11.05.16 and 12.05.16 the said vehicle was parked at premises of Opposite Party No.2 and there the Complainant was charged Rs. 5,000/- bearing receipt dated 13.05.16. As mentioned in demanded repairs and job instruction capturing sheet Rs. 300/- per day will be applicable till the vehicle in question was removed from Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that after completing the formalities he submitted all the necessary documents demanded for claim at office of Opposite Party No.1 for processing his claim. The claim was registered with claim No. MOT05557170 which was duly acknowledged by Opposite Party No.1 vide letters dated 05.08.16 and 17.09.16. The Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 many times but Opposite Party No.1 did not release the claim of Complainant. The Complainant stated that officials of Opposite Party No.1 are forcing Complainant to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- and sign the papers for settlement. The Complainant stated that the said vehicle was parked on a public road and not in garage but with connivance of Opposite Party No.1 they have taken Rs. 5,000/- as parking charges from Complainant and demanded Rs. 300/- per day from Complainant to settle the claim. The said vehicle was categorized as total loss even then Opposite Party No.1 is not settling the claim of Complainant. The Complainant stated that on 17.09.16 Opposite Party No.1 demanded unnecessary documents from Complainant to view and obtain signatures of Complainant for settlement of less claim. The Complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Party through his counsel dated 21.10.16 but Opposite Party neither settled the amount nor gave any reply to the legal notice. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 4,39,242/- along with future interest accrued on the principal amount  18 % p.a. upto date from May 2016 and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment. He has also prayed for cost of litigation and parking charges if any, claimed by the Opposite Party No.2.
2. The right to file written statement of Opposite Party No.2 was closed vide order dated 09.12.19 as Opposite Party No.2 failed to file the same within the stipulated period of 45 days.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.1 that admittedly the vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident on 27.04.16 and the same was intimated the Opposite Party No.1 on 11.05.16 for the first time after a delay of 14 days in violation of the policy conditions. On receiving intimation regarding accident, Opposite Party No.1 appointed duly IRDA licensed and independent surveyor immediately on same day to investigate the accident and to verify the damages/loss caused to the vehicle and to assess the liability of Opposite Party No.1 as per the terms and conditions of policy. The surveyor inspected the vehicle in the presence of Complainant and the representative of repairer on the basis of estimate provided by repairer dismantled the vehicle, thereby assessing the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to the tune of Rs. 2,42,242/- on net on salvage basis relying upon the salvage value of the vehicle Rs. 1,96,000/- as per online auction, and submitted final survey report dated 29.06.16. The surveyor demanded the necessary documents from Complainant to process the claim, but the Complainant failed to provide certain documents such as indemnity Bond and AML documents to the surveyor, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 issued letters dated 27.05.16 and 17.09.16 to the Complainant for submission of the above documents, but Complainant remained deaf about these letters. The Complainant was also warned that if he will not submit the pending documents within 7 days, then it would be believed that he is not interested in settlement of claim and his claim will be permanently closed. The Opposite Party No.1 issued letter dated 20.11.16 closing the claim for want of pending documents, not submitted by Complainant despite receiving the letters and reminders oral communication and interaction for submission of pending documents.
4. It is also submitted by Opposite Party No.1 that the present complaint is premature as the claim of Complainant was never repudiated by Opposite Party No.1 rather the same is closed for want of documents and Opposite Party No.1 is ready to settle the claim as per survey report on furnishing the above mentioned documents, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 denied that they gave instructions to Complainant to park the vehicle at Opposite Party No.2 and submitted that the vehicle was shifted to workshop only for estimate and assessment by the surveyor to verify the damages and asses the liability as per terms and conditions of policy.
6. The Opposite Party No.1 denied that the customer service manager Mr. Mohan Rawat or Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj pressurized the Complainant to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- or sign the papers of settlement which is against the ethics of business conduct and submitted that the allegations for receiving the amount or signing the settlement papers is totally wrong, baseless and concocted therefore cannot be relied upon. Further Opposite Party No.1 submitted that they cannot make any offer for settlement until and unless all the documents are received by them. Therefore, no question arise to offer any amount without considering the claim on merits, and even otherwise the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to the extent of Rs. 2,42,242/- as per final survey report, therefore all allegation against Opposite Party No.1 are completely wrong, baseless.
7. It is further denied by Opposite Party No.1 that delay in making claim for getting the said vehicle repaired is the sole duty of Opposite Party No.1 which is not performing knowingly only to build up the pressure on Complainant or threatening the Complainant that he has to pay parking charges to the Opposite Party No.2 Rs. 300/- per day which is increasing day by day because of negligence of the Opposite Party No.1. it is further denied that the letter dated 17.09.16 clearly spells out that in order to delay the claim Opposite Party No.1 is demanding a necessary documents such as indemnity bond and AML document’s with view to obtain signatures for settlement of less claim which is not acceptable to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

8. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

10. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Vikash Goyal, Legal Manger with Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported. Arguments & Conclusion
11. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that he got insured his vehicle for period 12.04.16 to 11.04.17 with IDV value of Rs. 4,39,242/- and Rs. 12,139/-was paid to Opposite Party No.1. On 27.04.16 the vehicle in question met with a fatal accident. At the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by the  Complainant who got registered DD in Police Station Kavi Nagar on 09.05.16. Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter survey was conducted by surveyor of Opposite Party No.1. The vehicle in question was recovered from Police Station Kavi Nagar and taken in custody of Complainant on 12.05.16 and the said vehicle was parked at premises of Opposite Party No.2 on instruction of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 charged Rs. 5,000/- for parking charges. It is also stated by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 also informed him that 300/- per day will be charged for parking for the vehicle in question till the vehicle was removed from the premises of Opposite Party No.2. The claim was registered with the Opposite Party No.1 which was duly acknowledged by Opposite Party No.1 vide letters dated 05.08.16 and 17.09.16. The said vehicle was categorized as total loss by the surveyor in his report even then Opposite Party No.1 is not settling the claim of Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
12. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that admittedly the vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident on 27.04.16 and the same was intimated the Opposite Party No.1 on 11.05.16 for the first time after a delay of 14 days in violation of the policy conditions. On receiving intimation regarding accident Opposite Party No.1 appointed surveyor and same day to investigate the accident and to verify the damages/loss caused to the vehicle and to assess the liability of Opposite Party No.1 as per the terms and conditions of policy. The surveyor inspected the vehicle in the presence of Complainant and the representative of Opposite Party No.2, on the basis of estimate provided by Opposite Party No.2, thereby assessing the liability of Opposite Party No.1 to the tune of Rs. 2,42,242/- on net on salvage basis relying upon the salvage value of the vehicle Rs. 1,96,000/- as per online auction, and submitted final survey report dated 29.06.16. The surveyor demanded the necessary documents from Complainant to process the claim, but the Complainant failed to provide certain documents such as indemnity Bond and AML documents to the surveyor, therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 issued letters dated 27.05.16 and 17.09.16 to the Complainant for submission of the documents, but Complainant failed to do the same. The Opposite Party No.1 issued letter dated 20.11.16 closing the claim for want of pending documents. It is further submitted by Opposite Party No.1 that the present complaint is premature as the claim of Complainant was never repudiated by Opposite Party No.1 rather the same is closed for want of documents and Opposite Party No.1 is ready to settle the claim as per survey report on furnishing the above mentioned documents i.e. Indemnity Bond and AML therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
13. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that vehicle in question was fully damaged and admission of the liability on total loss basis i.e. IDV value of the vehicle Rs. 4,39,242/- - Less policy Charge of Rs. 1,000/-. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 claim was not settled by the Opposite Party No.1 on want of documents namely Indemnity bond and AML. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 and in their written statement that the vehicle was shifted to workshop only for assessment by the surveyor to verify the damages and assess the liability as per terms and conditions of the policy.
14. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Complainant is directed to provided Indemnity bond and AML document to Opposite Party No.1 within one month from the date of this order. On receiving of documents the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay the IDV Value of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs. 4,39,242/- and Rs. 5,000/- on account of estimate charges paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant within one month from the receiving of the documents. In case claim is not settled within one month from receiving documents from Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 shall pay interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of submission of documents by Complainant. Complainant is also not liable to pay any parking charges to the Opposite party No.2. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation cost with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
15. Order announced on 10.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President