State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Khushi Ram. vs Icici Lombard G.I.Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 17 September, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.128/2015
Date of Presentation: 16.07.2015
Date of Decision: 17.09.2015
..................................................................................
Khushi Ram, son of late Shri Daulat Ram,
Resident of Village Mehra, Post Office Kansakoti,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
(1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,
Through Branch Manager,
Near D.C. Office, Rajgarh Road, Solan, H.P.
(2) ICICI Lombard,
SCO-501, Sector-70,
District Mohali, Punjab,
Through its Regional Manager.
.......... Respondents.
...............................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
..........................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal by the complainant, is directed against the order dated 27.04.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ which he filed against the respondents, has been allowed partly and a sum of `5,209/-, in addition to an amount of `13,782/- already paid by the respondents, has been ordered to be paid, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from 09.04.2012, the date of filing of complaint, to the date of its payment with further direction to pay a sum of `5,000/-, on account of compensation for mental harassment.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Appellant was the owner of Maruti Omni Van of 1997 model, bearing registration No. HP-10A-2381, which was insured with the respondents in the sum of `90,000/-, for the period from 27.05.2010 to 26.05.2011. On 11.03.2011, vehicle met with an accident and was extensively damaged. Report was lodged with the police by appellant. Intimation of accident was given to the respondents also. According to the appellant, he was told by the functionaries of the respondents to get the vehicle repaired and who promised to pay him the entire cost of repair of vehicle. He took vehicle to a workshop and spent a sum of `55,434/- Page 2 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ on the repair of vehicle. Respondents, however, paid only a sum of `13,783/-, through an account payee cheque. Appellant was aggrieved by the amount of money paid to him. He served a legal notice upon the respondents. Notice did not fetch any reply from the respondents. Upon that appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay difference between the amount of money actually spent by him, i.e. `55,434/- and the amount of money paid by the respondents, i.e. an amount an amount of `13,782/-, besides claiming compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by the respondents. It was stated that Surveyor deputed by the respondents had though assessed the loss at `18,991/-, yet he did not make 50% cut in the amount of metallic parts, that were replaced and that after making a cut, on account of depreciation for metallic parts, a sum of `13,782/- was worked out as the amount of money, actually payable to the Page 3 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ appellant, which amount of money was paid to him, through a cheque.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that no cut need to have been made by the respondents in the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor and with this finding, direction has been given to the respondents to pay the difference between the amount of money already paid and the quantum of loss assessed by the Surveyor and in addition, a sum of `5,000/- has been ordered to be paid, on account of compensation and litigation expenses.
5. Appellant is dissatisfied with the order of learned District Forum. According to him, he is entitled to the entire amount of money, which he has spent on the repair of vehicle.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. According to the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, the vehicle being more than ten years old, 50% cut is required to be made in the cost of metallic parts and cut at similar rate is required to be made in the case of plastic, nylon, Page 4 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ glass and other parts. Reference in this behalf may be made to that portion of Section-I, which pertains to deductions for depreciation.
8. Appellant has submitted bill, Annexure C3, against which he alleges to have paid a sum of `55,434/-, on account of repair. In the bill, there are named thirty-three parts, which have been replaced. Some of the parts figuring in the bill, i.e. glass dickey, shutter glass, driver's side glass, battery & alternator, do not figure in the estimate submitted by the appellant to the Surveyor, which means that these parts were not damaged. Therefore, their cost is required to be excluded from the aggregate amount of bill, Annexure C3. Total cost of these five items, which figure at Serial Nos.9, 10, 11, 32 & 33, respectively, comes to `7,550/-. Bill includes denting & painting charges and labour charges mentioned at Serial Nos.27, 28 & 29. Total amount of these three items comes to `20,500/-.
9. Now, if from the total amount of the bill, which is `55,434/-, cost of parts, which do not find mention in the estimate submitted to the Surveyor Page 5 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ and charges of denting & painting and labour charges, are excluded, we get the figure of money, paid on account of cost of parts. This figure is `27,384/-. This amount is required to be reduced by 50%, on account of depreciation, in view of the aforesaid Clause in Section-1 of the policy. Thus, the total amount of money payable to the appellant, on account of cost of replaced parts comes to `13,692/.
10. In addition, appellant claims expenses incurred on denting & painting and labour charges. According to him, a sum of `20,500/- has been spent on denting, painting and mechanical labour charges. Surveyor deputed by the respondents has assessed the cost of denting, painting and mechanical labour charges at `8,000/-. Vehicle, as per police report, copy Annexure C2, had rolled down the road and landed about fifty feet below the road level, resulting in breaking of almost all the glass parts of the vehicle. That means, the vehicle was badly dented almost on all the sides and also the top. Therefore, the amount of money shown to have been charged from the appellant, on account Page 6 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ of denting, as per bill, Annexure C3, cannot be said to be on the higher side. So, he is held to be entitled to a sum of `10,000/-, on account of denting charges.
11. A sum of `8,000/- is shown to have been charged from the appellant, on account of painting, as per bill, Annexure C3. However, he is not entitled to any amount of money, on account of painting, because the appellant did not pay any additional amount of money for seeking indemnification for painting charges, in accordance with IMT endorsement No.23 of the policy. As per policy, appellant had opted for only 16, 22 & 28 IMT endorsements and not IMT-23. So, nothing is payable to the appellant, on account of money spent on painting.
12. Total amount of money, thus, payable to the appellant, comes to `13,692/- plus `10,000/-= `23,692/-.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, appeal is partly allowed and an additional amount of `4,701/- is directed to be paid to the appellant, with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date Page 7 of 8 Khushi Ram Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.128/2015) ___________________________________________________ of filing of complaint, i.e. 09.04.2012, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
14. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member September 17, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 8 of 8