DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                   C.P.No. 112 OF 2012 & M.A.No.171 OF 2012

                                                          IN

                             Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2012

                             Agro Dutch Industries Limited

                                                Vs.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

ARGUED BY : Sh.Ramesh Goyal, Counsel for applicant/complainant.

                        Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP Insurance Company.

Dated the 2nd day of November, 2012

                                                O R D E R

1.                Agro Dutch Industries Limited, complainant filed a complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited etc. (Ops), alleging that it got insured its car bearing registration No.CH03-Y-5005 vide Policy No.3001/50749045/04/000 valid from 31.10.2010 to 30.10.2011 with OPs No.1 and 2. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.2.2011. The said car was sent for repair to Krishna Automobiles (impleaded as OP No.3 in the complaint). The complainant was telephonically informed by OP No.3 that its claim was declined by the Insurance Company. The complainant made a prayer for a direction to the OPs either to get the car repaired or to pay the estimated costs of Rs.12,14,822/-. The complaint was contested by the OPs.

2.                During the pendency of the complaint, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 made a statement that the decision with regard to the settlement of the claim will be taken within a period of 45 days. This Forum disposed of the complaint vide order dated 23.3.2012 and observed as under :-

“6.              During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 made a statement that the decision with regard to settlement of the claim will be taken within a period of 45 days. The said statement had been admitted to be correct by the learned Counsel for the complainant.

7.                In view of such statement, we do not feel the necessity to go into the further details of the matter. The OP is directed to settle the claim within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order. However, it is made clear that, in case, the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim, he has a right to approach the Forum again, as per law. No order as to costs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 

8.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.”

The complainant – Agro Dutch Industries Limited filed an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 02.08.2012 alleging that even though a period of more than 4 months had passed, the OPs had not complied with the undertaking/statement given before this Forum and had not complied with the order dated 23.3.2012 passed by this Forum. A prayer was made for punishing the OPs in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                OP No.2 was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants for 13.9.2012. It was reported by the Legal Manager of OP No.2 that survey report amount had been paid to insured Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Executive Director of Agro Dutch Industries Limited through Registered Post. Copy of the cheque of Rs.5,99,833/- and insurance policy were attached with the bailable warrants. On 13.9.2012, the learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that the order had been complied with by the OPs.

4.                On 4.10.2012, the complainant made another application alleging that it had received a cheque dated 23.8.2012 on 13.9.2012 for an amount of Rs.5,99,833/-, which was not in the name of the owner company nor the amount was calculated as per the estimate – Annexure C-12 dated 7.4.2011 amounting to Rs.12,14,822/-. Apart from that, the parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day w.e.f. 2.3.2011 were not included in the amount. It was prayed that OPs No.1 and 2 be directed to take back the said amount and get the vehicle repaired and to make the payment directly to OP No.3 and further OPs be punished in accordance with provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.                The OPs filed a reply dated 19.10.2012 in which, it has been averred that one Mr.Gurpreet Singh had obtained the insurance policy but he had not filed the complaint or execution petition nor there was any authority letter on record on his behalf. It has been stated that the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. It has been averred that the cheque has been wrongly usurped by the applicant – complainant because it has no insurable interest in the vehicle. It has been further pleaded that the claim has been wrongly allowed as Mr.Gurpreet Singh has no relationship with the applicant. It has been further stated that the cheque be ordered to be returned to the OPs as M/s  Agro Dutch has illegally retained the cheque which was not meant for it.

6.                The learned Counsel for OPs stated on 26.10.2012 that the reply of the application filed by him in C.P.No.112 of 2012 (Execution Application) be also read as reply to the M.A.No.171 of 2012.

7.                On 26.10.2012, the learned Counsel for the complainant returned the cheque of Rs.5,99,833/- and the learned Counsel for the OPs received the cheque in question and made a statement that the complainant is not insured under the policy of insurance and has no locus- standi under the said policy.

8.                We have gone through the documents on record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

9.                As far as the prayer of the applicant/complainant in the Misc. Application No.171 of 2012 that the amount should have been calculated as per the estimate amounting to Rs.12,14,822/- and parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day should have also been calculated in the amount is concerned, it is pertinent to note that this Forum had simply directed in the order dated 13.3.2012 that the OP is directed to settle the claim within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order and if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim, he has a right to approach the Forum again, as per law. Thus, if the claim was settled at Rs.5,99,833/- by the OPs No.1 and 2, it cannot be stated that there is any disobedience of the order of this Forum in respect of the insurance amount. However, it is significant to note that the order for settlement of the claim was passed by this Forum as far back as on 23.3.2012 but it was not complied within 45 days and the copy of the cheque was handed over to the police official only on 11.9.2012 and the same was allegedly received by the complainant on 13.9.2012. This delayed compliance amounts to disobedience of the order.

10.              Adverting to the objections of the OPs that the complaint deserves to be dismissed and Mr.Gurpreet Singh has not filed the present complaint or execution and the complainant has no insurable interest, it is noteworthy that the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 while making a statement on 13.3.2012 about taking a decision with regard to the settlement of claim within a period of 45 days did not state that the complainant – Agro Dutch Industries Limited had not got insured the vehicle in question and had got no locus-standi to file the complaint. Once a statement was made by the learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and an order dated 23.3.2012 was passed by this Forum and OPs did not file any appeal against that order, that order has become final. This Forum cannot recall its order dated 23.3.2012. The complainant – Agro Dutch Industries Limited is definitely entitled to file an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for compliance of the order. The objections now raised by the OPs that the complaint deserves to be dismissed and the claim has been wrongly allowed and the applicant has no insurable interest in the vehicle, are frivolous and meaningless at this stage. The Executing Court cannot go behind the original order/decree. Otherwise also we find that Agro Dutch Industries Limited has locus-standi to file the complaint/execution application. A perusal of the main file shows that the insured vehicle bearing registration No. CH03-Y-5005 is registered in the name of Agro Dutch Industries Limited, Chandigarh as per Annexure C-14 in the main file. No doubt the said vehicle was got insured by Mr.Gurpreet Singh but a perusal of Annexure C-1 reveals that Mr.Gurpreet Singh is not a stranger. On the other hand, he is the Executive Director of M/s Agro Dutch Industries Limited, Chandigarh – complainant/applicant. In other words, the complainant - Agro Dutch Industries Limited is the owner of the vehicle, which was insured by Mr.Gurpreet Singh its Executive Director with OPs No.1 and 2. Resultantly, the objections raised by OPs and their conduct of taking back the cheque of Rs.5,99,833/- from  the learned Counsel for the OPs show that the OPs have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Forum. In this case, this Forum had earlier issued the bailable warrants against OP No.2 i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st floor, SCO No.24-25, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Area Manager Sh.Vishal Bansal.

11.              Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.2 has failed or omitted to comply with the order by this Forum and he is liable to be punished under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The application filed by the complainant is partly allowed. It is directed that the presence of Mr.Vishal Bansal be secured through warrant of arrest for 23.11.2012 for passing an order in respect of the quantum of sentence.