STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: The J and K Consumer Disputes Commission Jammu issued 30 days notice to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited to file objections in the complaint filed by Arvind Kalra against decline to insurance claim made for repairing a damaged BMW X1 SDRIVE 20 D luxury car that met with an accident on 9th March 2015 while coming to Jammu from Vijaypur.
The complainant through his complaint under Section 10 (read with Section 15) of CPA 1987 has pleaded that he did not receive any response even to the legal notice dated 12th May 2015 which was issued to the respondents herein and by virtue of which, the respondents were called upon to pay Rs. 2,54,760 which complainant paid to M/s Krishna Automobiles, Ludhiana, the dealer of BMW as against the bill raised by it towards repair of the BMW car bearing registration No. HR51AN-4444, and compensation of Rs. 50 lakh on various other counts.
The complainant even did not receive any plausible response from the Grievance Cell of the respondent company in respect of representations made to it by mails dated 10th April 2015 and 1st May, 2015 in respect of claim carrying Reference No. MOT0444983S.
According to complaint, the luxury vehicle BMW-X1 SDRJVE 20 D was purchased in the name of M/S N.D Radha Kishen and Co., the partnership concern of the complainant and Karan Dev Sethi on 6th April, 2014 from M/S Bird Automative having its Show Room at Ambiance Mall, Ambiance Island, NH-S, Gurgaon for Rs. 34,04,126 (on road price). The vehicle remained comprehensively insured from the date of its purchase and no claim was raised ever since it was purchased. The aforesaid vehicle suffered extensive damage on 9th March 2015 when it went into a ditch while the complainant made strenuous effort to avoid a head-on collision from a heavy vehicle coming from opposite direction when the complainant was on his way from Vijaypur to Jammu. The complainant send the damaged car to a Ludhiana based company for repairs and after the repair was completed and the insurance company was approached for bill claim. The representative of the insurance company declined the claim on the grounds that survey photos suggest that damage to suspensions is not due to external means therefore only damage to tyre can be allowed under E.P. protect.
The complainant seriously noticed the response of the representative of the respondent company having declined to allow the claim with regard to damage caused to alloy wheels, suspension arm and other parts while accepting the replacement of the tyre found damaged, took up the issue with the dealer and upon this, the dealer strongly took up the issue with the insurance company by providing proof regarding the damaged parts and transmitted pictures and video clips. The complainant has pleaded that the representatives of the respondent company in order to evade its liability having arisen in terms of the policy conditions is ignoring the stance of the dealer that the apparent damages were due to accident.
It was also pleaded that complainant is a leading entrepreneur in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and enjoys a high stature in the society and the current conflict has disturbed his peace of mind despite paying a huge amount as insurance premium therefore a compensation of Rs. 50 lakh was also sought from the respondent company.
