Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
BALJIT SINGH GILL - Appellant
Versus
ICICI LOMBARD AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2215 of 2009 against Order dated 31.3.2009 in Appeal No. 1936 of 2008 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh
Decided on : 26-05-2010
Party in Person, for the Appellant; Nemo., for the Respondent
The insurance company can be held liable for refunding a portion of the repair costs to the insured if it was unwilling to meet the total repairing cost.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance Claim - Liability of Insurance Company for Repair Costs
Fact of the Case:
The insured car met with an accident and sustained major damages. The insurance company was not willing to meet the total repairing cost, so the petitioner made a partial payment. A consumer complaint was filed alleging deficiency on the part of the authorized dealer and the financier.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission partly admitted the claim, directing the insurance company to return a portion of the payment to the petitioner along with interest and litigation costs.
Issues: The issues included the alleged deficiency on the part of the authorized dealer and the liability of the insurance company for the repair costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The State Commission found no merit in the grievances against the authorized dealer but held the insurance company liable to refund a portion of the payment to the petitioner along with interest.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the State Commission's decision.
ORDER
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member - Insured Toyota Corolla car on raising loan from ICICI Bank by petitioner met with an accident on 24th November, 2006 when it sustained major damages. Car was taken to respondent No. 2, authorized dealer of Kirloskar Motors for repairs. Information about accident and damages so suffered was also supplied to Insurance Company, the insurer. Authorized dealer to whom vehicle was taken for repair prepared total bill of repairs at Rs. 5,43,658. Since Insurance Company was not willing to meet total repairing cost, petitioner made payment of Rs. 1,91,410. Insurance Company towards their liability made payment of Rs. 3,62,706 to authorized dealer on 30th June, 2007. Alleging deficiency on part of authorized dealer and also financier ICICI Lombard, a consumer complaint was filed by petitioner. Claim was resisted by opposite parties for there being no deficiency on their part and District Forum having accepted their defence finding no merit dismissed complaint. Appeal, however, preferred by petitioner was accepted by State Commission partly admitting claim, directing respondent No. 1 to return Rs. 48,574.30 ps. to petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum as also litigation cost of Rs. 2,100.
2. Though a number of grievances, including that considerable time was consumed by authorized dealer in making repairs of vehicle, were raised by petitioner alleging deficiency on part of the authorized dealer, State Commission having taken notice of satisfaction note executed by petitioner on 19th April, 2007 suggesting no complaint and also petitioner having taken trial run of vehicle, found no merit with grievance of petitioner on this score as against authorized dealer. However, it also held that though as per assessment made by Surveyor petitioner was required to share Rs. 48,574.30 only towards depreciation of vehicle, in addition to salvage value of Rs. 26,858.17 ps., he had to pay Rs. 1,91,410 and in this backdrop State Commission held respondent No. 1 liable to refund Rs. 48,574.30 to petitioner along with interest. There being no error with finding of State Commission requiring our interference in revision, revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs.
