Punjab

StateCommission

A/258/2018

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

visal goel

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,    PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.258 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution    : 03.05.2018       

                                                          Order Reserved on  : 25.09.2018

                                                          Date of Decision     :  01.10.2018

 

Jarnail Singh s/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, r/o H.No. 129, Village Bagrian, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

 

       Appellant/Complainant 

Versus

 

1.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, SCO-11, Chhoti Baradari Mall Road, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Interface-II, Office No. 401-402, New Linking Road, Malad(W), Mumbai 400064, through its Manager.

 

                                                              Respondents/Opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Patiala.

 

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

            Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant         :  Sh.Vikas Goel, Advocate

          For the respondents    :  Sh.Gourav Sharma, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 26.03.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Patiala directing the respondent of this appeal to pay the amount of Rs.75,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from 04.03.2015 till realization, besides payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. The respondents of this appeal are opposite parties in the complaint before District Forum and appellant of this appeal is complainant therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that he is owner of Ashoka Leyland LCV-Dost-LS-BS-III bearing registration no.PB-13-AL-2756 and same was insured with OPs. OPs issued policy cover note no.GR11159375, which was cashless to him for the period of 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014. On 03.12.2014 at about 10.00 pm, he along with his driver were coming from Nabha side to Patiala, when they reached near PRTC workshop situated at Nabha Road, his vehicle struck with an animal (cow) and to avoid the collision with the animal, he got rammed into a troller. Due to this accident, front cabin, dashboard, radiator, engine and outer chassis of his insured vehicle was damaged. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle must be got repaired by OPs. On 04.12.2014, he reported the matter to office of OP no.1 regarding this accident and he met Onkar Singh CSM-Motor ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Patiala and informed him regarding the said accident. The said Onkar Singh demanded some documents from him, which were provided by him. The complainant also lodged DDR no.23 regarding the above accident on 09.12.2014. The  above said Onkar Singh assured him that his claim would be processed soon and he would get the vehicle repaired and insurance company would pay the amount, but till date, nobody has turned up to do so. The said vehicle was lying wrecked since 03.12.2014 at workshop of Yashoda Automobiles, which was situated at Rajpura Road Patiala. He also served a legal notice upon OPs on 21.03.2015, but to no use. This illegal act of OPs created a great hardship and mental harassment as well as financial loss to him. The complainant prayed for direction to OPs to pay Rs. 5 lac as claim of the vehicle and Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.                Upon notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred therein that complainant has obtained insurance policy no. 3003/85805158/00/800 covering vehicle with engine no.59043 and chassis no.35995P from OPs for the period of 13.12.2013 to 12.12.2014, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant has intimated one own damage claim with regard to accidental loss to the insured vehicle on 03.12.2014 and intimation in this regard was given to insurance company on 05.12.2014. On receipt of intimation, OPs deputed Jatin Arora Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss.  The said surveyor submitted his report on 04.12.2015. OPs have also deputed A.P Singh investigator to investigate the case of the complainant, who has submitted report that vehicle was driven by complainant himself, who was not having driving licence to drive the vehicle in question on the date of accident. After scrutinizing the entire record as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, his claim was not found tenable and accordingly it was repudiated, vide letter dated 04.03.2015. The vehicle was registered as Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) and was also insured under Goods Carrying Package Policy, but the complainant was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle on the date of accident. OPs no.1 and 2 denied any deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Aditya Sharma on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Patiala accepted the complaint of the  complainant by virtue of order dated 26.03.2018. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Patiala, complainant now appellant, has carried this appeal against the same.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.                The complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation in this case. OPs now respondents in this appeal have not preferred any such counter appeal  against the correctness and legality of the findings arrived at by District Forum in this case. Since no cross-appeal has been preferred by OPs against the correctness of the finding as such, we do not touch the legality of the order passed by the District Forum other than on the point of quantum of compensation alone. The complainant being appellant seeks direction to OPs to pay the amount of Rs.5 lac as claim of the vehicle and Rs.1 lac for mental harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. The complainant Jarnail Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A and stated that the vehicle met with an accident, which was insured with OPs by him. He further stated that it was cashless policy. Copy of driving licence is Ex.C-1. Copy of purchase of bill of vehicle is Ex.C-2. Copy of  insurance cover note is Ex.C-3. Copy of registration certificate is Ex.C-4. He further stated that the vehicle met with an accident near PRTC workshop situated at Nabha Road Patiala  and due intimation was given to OPs. Police report was also lodged, vide Ex.C-5 with regard to this accident. He further stated that the vehicle was taken to workshop Yashoda Automotives at Rajpura Road, Patiala for repair and has been lying there since 03.12.2014. He further stated that the above said workshop recorded the estimate of the vehicle of its damage to the tune of Rs.63,800/-. He relied upon report of Yashoda Automotive in this regard.  On the other hand, OPs relied upon report of surveyor, who was deputed under Insurance Act on receipt of intimation of this accident by OPs. The surveyor Jatin Arora submitted his report Ex.OP-3 assessing the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.75,000/- only. The core controversy in this case is between estimate prepared by Yashoda Automotive Patiala Ex.C-2  as well as report of surveyor Ex.OP-3 on the record.  Ex.C-5 is the cash invoice paid by complainant to Yashoda Automotive. The detail of expenses per item wise has not been proved by exhibiting by complainant in this regard. As against it; surveyor submitted his report Ex.OP-3 assessing the loss of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.75,000/- only. The detail of loss prepared by surveyor is part of his report at page 37 of the record of District Forum. There is conflict between Yashoda Automotives report and report of surveyor. National Commission has held in “ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Shameen Banu” reported in Revision Petition no. 3607 of 2012  decided on 31.01.2018 that report of surveyor has to be given due weightage and reliance was placed in this regard on law laid down in “Sikka Papers Limited vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.” & Ors reported in 2009(9) SCR 1088  and “Champalal Verma vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” Reported in 3(2008) CPJ 93 (NC). It has been held in this authority that surveyor assessed the various parts after due depreciation and provided the details how he arrived at the figure. It has been held in the cited cases  that assessment made by the licenced surveyor was the actual loss of assessment and not the estimate. In this view of the matter, as held in the citied authorities, since the appointment of surveyor is statutory and he is expert in assessing the loss of the vehicle and as such we prefer to rely upon the report of surveyor. The District Forum has correctly relied upon the report of surveyor in the order and decided the case accordingly. We have not come across any illegality or perversity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein.

7.                As  a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.                Arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.09.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                       (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                                   (KIRAN SIBAL)                            

                                                                    MEMBER

October 1,   2018                                                                

(ravi)