District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 14 of 2008
Rajiv Singh s/o Sri Swarup Singh
R/o Village- and Post- Jainamor, P.S. Jaridih,
Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata,
J.K. Millennium Centre, 46D Choutri Road, Kolkata-700071.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance,
Sector- IV, City Centre, B.S.City, Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 15 January, 2009
Date of case filing-: 14 February, 2008
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has file this case against the opposite parties and sought direction against them to pay Rs. 331011/- to him, including compensation and litigation cost.
2 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had got his Truck No. JH02-D-6455 insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No. 3003/1079787/00/000. The said Truck of the complainant met an accident at Sili, Ranchi on 22.03.2007, a case was also registered at Sili Police Station case No. 21/07. The complainant immediately gave information to the Insurance Co. with claim vide No. 327286 dated 24.03.2007. The opposite party appointed 3 Surveyor namely Pankaj Kumar, Mayank Kumar and Rakesh Prasad Sinha and they have all assessed the damage of the Truck caused due to accident but none of them recommended for payment to the complainant. The complainant alleged one of the Surveyor namely Rakesh Prasad Sinha bribe from the complainant supporting of his demand of claim. The complainant also gave information to the ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. regarding demand of bribe from the complainant and further requested to pay the claim to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 276011/-. But the opposite party sent a cheque of Rs. 22223/- vide cheque No. 742847 which the complainant refused to accept and sent back to the Insurance Co. The complainant is sustained loss of Rs. 10000/- per day on account of non payment of claim by the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint case against the opposite parties and sought the above mentioned total Rs. 331011/- from the opposite parties since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant.
3 After issuance of notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that the complaint case has filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts. The complainant has no cause of action for the present case as against the opposite parties. However the opposite parties admitted that the complainant is the Owner of TATA Truck model no. 2515having registration No. JH-02-D-6455 insured with the opposite parties Insurance Co. under Policy No. 3003/1079787/00/000 for the period from 19.08.2006 to 18.08.2007. But the complainant had not disclosed the details of the accident and the JCB Truck which is s to have negligently dashed the said vehicle of the complainant. The complainant had also not disclosed together any 3rd party claim was met against the other vehicle and in case the complainant has derive any benefits for the same. So far coverage of insurance co. is concerned it is a contract under certain terms and conditions agreed upon in between insured and the insurer and there, the liability of the insurer is subject to end within purview of the said terms and conditions of the policy. However the opposite parties immediately after receipt of claim from the complainant took steps towards settlement of the matter and authorized independent Surveyor were appointed to assess the loss due to damage to the said vehicle. The Surveyor Mr. Rakesh Prasad Sinha who was appointed to assessed the loss due to damage of the said vehicle by his report dated 03.09.2007 assessed the loss to the said vehicle and on the basis of the report of the independent Surveyor the payment was made by the opposite parties by way of cheque vide No. 7428 for an amount of Rs. 22233/- and these opposite parties are not liable to further pay any amount to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the subject policy.
4 So far the claim of the complainant is concerned of this claims are false and frivolous and that whatever has not been specifically admitted is hereby denied and the complainant is under strict proof of the same by way of adducing cogent evidence. There is no negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as such the opposite parties are not liable to pay the claim amount of the complainant except the amount assessed by the Surveyor of the opposite party, hence the present case is fit to be dismissed for the ends of justice.
5 Heard both the parties and perused the case records and documents filed on their behalf. It is observed that the Survey report dated 03.09.2007 has been filed by Rakesh Pd. Sinha Surveyor and loss assessor authorized by the opposite parties in connection with the damage to the vehicle in question on account of its accident alleged by the complainant. The assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 22233/- after taking into account the work involved, spare parts etc. detailed in his report.
Further, it is found that the complainant has filed copies of all the bills/ cash memo/invoice/ vouchers/receipts in respect of procurement of spare parts for repair of the vehicle in question damaged in the alleged incident in support of his claim of Rs. 276011/-. The entire above bills are detailed below-
Sl. No.- Bills/Cash memo/ Supplier/Agency Amount
Voucher/receipt
Nos./date
1. 355/11.6.07 Sinha Enterprises 11400/-
Jainamore
2. 02.08.07 Steel India 4848/-
Jainamore
3. 379/11.08.07 Swastik (Aluminum) 10296/-
a. Agencies Chas.
4. 191/29.07.07 Ambika Automobiles 40281.75
Phusro
5. 192/31.07.07 do 24975/-
6. 193/01.08.07 do 652.50
7. 184/01.07.07 Vardhman Enterprises 970/-
Jainamore.
8. 183/01.07.07 do 6286/-
9. 186/02.07.07 do 1040/-
10. 185/02.07.07 do 3450/-
11. 20/23.05.07 J.K. Timber, Jainamore1580/-
12. 89/02.06.07 do 15882.25
13. 25.06.07 Sunil Radiator works 1250/-
Jainamore
14. 398/20.07.07 Kolkatta MotoWorks15000/-
Jainamore
15. 03.07.07 Bokaro Steel Furniture 850/-
Jainamore
16. 391 Kolkata Motor Works 21755/-
Jainamore
17. 26.03.07 Wheel India, Biada 10000/-
18. ——- Khushbu Body Builders 90000/-
Jainamore
19. 06.05.07 Chanchal Auto 15496.87
Jainamore
20. 01/02.04.07 Kolkata Motor Work 29000/-
Jainamore
6 Upon scrutiny of the Surveyor’s report dated 03.02.2007 it is our opinion that the loss assessed at Rs. 22233/- by the Surveyor is totally unrealistic considering the type of vehicle in question damaged in alleged accident. The price of spare parts and the cost of the labour charges appeare to be much underestimated. In view of the same we conclude that the offer of the opposite party for payment of Rs. 22233/- to the complainant against his claim is not at all tenable. Against this back ground, the actual expenses incurred by the complainant for replacement of damaged parts/repair of the vehicle in question vide above mentioned bills/cash memos/invoice/ vouchers and receipts will be considered for appreciation of his claim. While going through the copies of the bills cash/ memos/invoice/ vouchers and receipts filed by the complainant as mentioned above, bill No. 20 dated 23.05.07 of J.K. Timber, Jainamore for Rs. 1580.45 does not mention the vehicle registration number. Bill No. nil of Khushbu Body Builder, Jainamore for Rs. 90000/- does not mentioned any date. Bill No. 391 of Kolkata Motor Works, Jainamore for Rs. 21755/- is undated. Bill No. nil dated 01/02-04-07 for Rs. 29000/- of Kolkata Motor Works Jainamore is only an estimate and not a bill regarding actual work done. As such these 4 bills will not be taken into account for assessment of the claim of the complainant. All the rest 16 bills totaling to Rs. 162677.50 rounded to Rs. 162678 is allowed as claim of the complainant. Since the opposite parties have not paid the claim to the complainant we hold the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are held liable to pay the claim to the complainant.
7 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 162678 (One lac sixty two thousand six hundred seventy eight only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 162678/- with effect from the date of the order till payment to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1000/-(Rs. one thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President
Tags: ICICI