BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Agro Dutch Industries Limited, SCO No.30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Interface Building No.11, Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai -400 064 through its Manager.

2.       ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st floor, SCO No.24-25, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

3.       Krishna Automobiles, BMW Dealer, Plot No.125, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Ramesh Goyal, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

                        Sh.Surender Tiwana, Authorised Representative of OP No.3.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got insured the car bearing No.CH03-Y-5005 vide policy No. 3001/50749045/04/000 valid from 31.10.2010 to 30.10.2011 with the OPs No.1 and 2. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.2.2011. FIR No.46 dated 12.2.2011 was got registered against the driver.

              The said car was sent to OP No.3 for repair on 2.3.2011. Sh.Manoj Kukreja was appointed as surveyor, who inspected the vehicle. The complainant received a letter dated 6.5.2011 from OPs No.1 and 2 qua which, they sought some documents from the complainant, which were duly supplied.

              It has been further stated that OP No.3 telephonically informed the complainant on 26.7.2011 that the claim has been declined by the insurance company. The complainant served a legal notice upon OPs No.1 and 2 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OPs No.1 and 2 filed the joint reply. The preliminary objections vis-vis jurisdiction and non-joinder of financer as a party were raised. On merits, it has been pleaded that the replying OPs carried out a detailed investigation and as per the investigation report, the insured purposely introduced a new driver in order to mislead the court and investigation of police. The statement of the person who lodged the police complaint has also been recorded qua which, he specifically stated that the person who had been introduced as a driver in the present proceedings was not in fact the driver of the car at the time of the accident, as the car was being driven at the time of accident by a person, aged about 20-21 years old. That Daulat Ram, who is stated by the insured to be the driver of the vehicle was in fact not driving the car. The police investigation is still continuing and no challan has been presented by the police. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3.           OP No.3 filed the reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part.

4.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and authorized representative of OP No.3 and have also perused the record. 

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.