BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.345 of 2016
Date of Instt. 10.08.2016
Date of Decision: 21.02.2018
Santokh Singh S/o Bhulla Singh R/o Village Talwandi Madho, Tehsil Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Corporate Office: ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office:- 2nd Floor, Nirmal Complex (Swagat Palace), Plot No.E H-198, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Mehta, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. RK Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased Vehicle Tata Ace Zip BS-III bearing registration No.PB-08-CP-7249, Chasis No.WIIIS3L8216209, Engine No.MAT491005D6P33413 from M/s Cargo Motors Private Ltd., vide Invoice No.T/2484 dated 06.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,48,803/- and got insured the same with the office of the OPs, vide policy No.3003/TM-00195574/00/000 dated 17.01.2014 valid for the period from 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015 and paid the required premium of Rs.13,620/- to OPs against the said comprehensive Insurance Policy of the Vehicle in question.
2. That on 27.12.2014, the said insured Vehicle met with an accident with Truck bearing Registration No.PB-13-Z-4006 at Village Kular Gate, Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar and due to accident, Sh. Palwinder Singh @ Kaka S/o Lachman Singh R/o Ward No.5, Lohian Khas, Tehsil Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar driver of the said insured vehicle died at the spot and accordingly, a case FIR No.312 dated 27.12.2014 U/s 279, 304-A, 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar. Due to that accident, the insured vehicle became totally damaged. After the accident, the complainant immediately gave an intimation about the accident to OPs and lodged a claim with the OPs against the above mentioned policy and also supplied all the relevant documents to OP and fulfilled all the requirements as necessary under the Law. Lastly, officials of the OP also told to the complainant to take the damaged vehicle in question to the workshop of M/s Cargo Motors Private Ltd., Paragpur, G.T. Road, Jalandhar and as per the assurance made by the OPs, the complainant also bring the insured vehicle at the workshop, but the OPs despite of all the requirements as necessary under the law, have not settled the claim and did not bother the request of the complainant. The complainant approached the officials of the OPs many times personally and also on telephone and requested to OP to release the claim, but the OPs refused to hear the request of the complainant and till today, OPs neither released the claim amount nor gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Due to the indifferent and reluctant attitude of the OPs, the complainant suffered great mental tension, harassment, agony, frustration and loss of money and time from the hands of the OPs, as such, OPs are deficient in rendering services and negligent in settlement of the claim and accordingly, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 28.05.2015 through his counsel, but no reply of the said notice was given by the OP and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,48,803/- i.e. Invoice value of the total damaged insured vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint against the OPs is not maintainable as neither any intimation of the loss to the insured vehicle has been ever given to the OPs nor any claim has been lodged by the complainant with the OPs and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that as per condition of the insurance policy that the notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage, so that the insurance company could get the Spot survey from Surveyor and assessed the loss caused to the vehicle. It is further submitted that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. The complainant has neither intimated the loss nor lodged any claim with the OPs with regard to loss to the insured vehicle in the accident dated 27.12.2014, as such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to issue of insurance policy to the complainant is admitted and further submitted that the complainant has never informed the OP regarding accident of the insured vehicle nor any claim has been filed and as such, the instant complaint is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 and some documents Mark C-2 to Mark C-10 and then closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Vidhi Passi, Manager (Legal) as Ex.OA alongwith documents Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant Santokh Singh is the owner of the insured vehicle bearing No.PB08-CP-7249 and same was got insured with the OP for the period 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015, is not in dispute. The plea taken by the OP is only that the complainant never informed the OP in regard to loss caused to the insured vehicle nor any claim has been lodged with the OP and as such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. If the version of the OP is correct, then obviously there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, but the complainant alleged that he has informed the OP immediately after the accident and also lodged a claim, but his claim has not been settled till today by the OPs, in order to give a strength of this version, the complainant has not brought on the file any documents, whereby he gave intimation to the OP regarding accident of the insured Truck nor any receipt produced on the file, where from we can construe that the complainant has filed an insurance claim. So, it means the case of the complainant is still a pre-mature because until the mater has not go the Courtyard of the OP, how they can decide the same in either way. We want to discus here that the accident took place on 27.12.2014 and if, we for the sake of argument admitted the version of the OPs that no intimation has been given by the complainant, but after 4 or 5 months, the complainant served a legal notice Ex.C-5 dated 28.05.2015, which is admittedly received by the OPs, vide copy of the acknowledgment Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, whereon a stamp of the receipt has been affixed by the OP's Office, even after the receipt of the said legal notice, the OP did not take any motion to appoint the Surveyor for assessment of the loss. So, it means that the intention of the OP is not clear or in favour of the deciding the insurance claim. So, with these observations, we come to conclusion that the appropriate measurement in this case is only to direct the OP to decide the insurance claim of the complainant, after appointing a Surveyor for getting assessment of the loss and accordingly, this complaint is disposed of and OPs are directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and further, if any documents are required, the same be demanded from the complainant by way of Black and White, if the claim of the complainant is not settled on either side within the aforesaid stipulated time, then the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and further, it is ordered that if the complainant will not satisfy with the decision of the OP in regard to settlement of insurance claim, then at that eventuality, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint on that cause of action. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
21.02.2018 Member President
