District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Complaint Case No. 62 of 2007
C.R. Mishra @Chitranjan Mishra s/o Sri Upendra Mishra
R/o Qr. No.-1572, Sector-XII/A, Bokaro Steel City
Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. Regional Manager,
Customer Service Motor, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Apeejay House, 7th Floor,
Block-B, 15 Part Street, Kolkata-700016.
2. Authorized Signatory,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Aashirwad Mansion, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 1794, Near
Over Bridge, Main Road, Ranchi-834001.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 07 February 2009
Date of case filing-: 08 October, 2007
-: Judgment:
The complainant has filed this against the opposite
parties and sought direction against them to pay Rs. 98589/-, Rs. 21000/- against deduction of salvage of body shell besides Rs. 900000/- for mental and physical harassment Rs. 50000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
2 Brief facts of the complaint case is that the complainant purchased a “CHEVROLET TABERA MUV (Model Elite- BSE) Car of Rs. 766469/- having registration No. Jh-09-E-7776 on 23.09.2005. The said Car was insured with the opposite parties for the periods from 23.09.2005 to 22.09.2006 vide Policy No. 3001/1211249100/000. The said car of the complainant met an accident on 11.02.2006 at Bokaro Steel City and the information was given to the opposite party No.2 who asked the complainant for arrangement of initial formalities like photography of the vehicle at the accident side and sending the Car to repair centre at Ranchi. As per directions of the opposite party No.2 the Car was sent to Rahul Automobile, Ranchi on 12.02.06 at the expenses of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 asked for certain formalities such as submission of the relevant papers, documents, claim form etc and assured the complainant that his claim would be settled at the earliest. The Rahul Automobiles Ranchi submitted initial estimate of Rs. 409320/- to the opposite party for repairing of the Car. The complainant received a letter on 04.04.2006 from the opposite party No.2 in which they have offered Rs. 2.2 lacs as maximum liability. The said offer was not based on any Surveyor or loss assessor report. After laps of 3 months a Surveyor Mr. Anil Bajaj came to repair Centre for assessment of repairing cost and loss caused to the complainant, where in the opposite party issued a cashless repair instruction to the repairer in July, 2006 i e after 5 months after lodging the claim by the complainant and was completed in the last week of November, 2006. During first start of the Engine it was noticed that crank shaft of the engine was also damaged and was repaired by the last week of January, 2007. After completion of repairing of Car M/s Rahul Automobile Ranchi submitted a perform invoice of Rs. 438494/- but the opposite party cleared only Rs. 339905/- and the complainant was forced to make payment of Rs. 98589/- before the delivery of the Car. The opposite party denied the labour charge, painting charge and Engine repair charge of the Car. The complainant also went to Kolkata to discuss the issue with the official of insurance co who assured him that they looked into the matter but did nothing even after laps of long period. The delay of repairing of Car be caused heavy financial, physical and mental loss to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the aforesaid mention amount to the complainant.
3 After issuance of notices the opposite parties appeared and file their written statement stating there in that the complaint case is not maintainable and the complainant has got no valid cause of action for the present case against the opposite parties. However the opposite parties admits that Car of the complainant was insured with the opposite party Insurance Co. vide Policy No. 3001/1211249100/000 “private car package policy” the opposite parties also admits that the said Car met an accident and the complainant had informed them regarding the accident, thereafter, the opposite party took stop towards settlement of the matter and, our Surveyor was appointed to assessed the loss due to damage to the said vehicle. As per initial survey the vehicle was repairable and as such repair work order was given to the work shop in charge but the complainant insisted on total loss which was not admissible as per the policy terms and conditions and considering the said fact that the insurer liability in the present case was less the 75% of IDV. The opposite parties by a letter dated 03.04.2006 requested the complainant to intimate the decision on the matter to enable the opposite party to settle the claim. On the request of complainant the opposite party issued a letter to the repairing Agency to start repair work of vehicle. Accordingly the garages Rahul Automobile, Ranchi were requested to repair the vehicle. Thereafter, a final survey was conducted by the independent Surveyor, the report whereof was submitted by way of Survey Report dated 07.02.2007. The delivery order for the said vehicle was given by the opposite parties and payment was made on the garage to the tune of Rs. 339905/- based on the assessment made in the survey report after making deduction for the salvage. But the complainant on the basis of a invoice bill of Rahul Automobile, Ranchi demanding more money which was not possible to pay to the complainant as because the complainant was not entitled for the amount mentioned in bill/invoice of Rahul Automobile, Ranchi since the repair of Car of the complainant was done on basis of cashless system. The opposite party paid the said amount as per the terms and conditions of the concerned policy of insurance and thereafter, there has not been negligency and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties insurance co. and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay the said relief of the complainant.
4 Both parties were heard. The case records and documents filed by the parties were perused. The insurance of the vehicle in question and its accident are admitted facts. It is observed that against a claim of Rs. 438494/- in respect of the repair of the vehicle only Rs. 339905/- were cleared by the insurance co. It is found that the surveyor appointed by the opposite party had assessed the repair cost of the vehicle to Rs. 366560.81 besides Rs. 28519.04 on account of engine repair. The opposite party did not pay the amount to the complainant as assessed by the Surveyor. We, therefore, hold the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant. The opposite parties are as such held liable to pay Rs. 26655.81(Rs.366560.81-Rs.339905.00) and Rs. 28519.04 totaling to Rs. 55174.05 rounded to Rs. 55175/- to the complainant besides other relief.
5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 55175/- (Rupees fifty five thousand one hundred seventy five only) along with interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of this order till payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant within 30days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President