BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.447 of 2018
Date of Instt. 29.10.2018
Date of Decision: 20.09.2022
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.EH- 198, G. T. Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Mehta, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased Vehicle Tata Ace Zip BS-III bearing registration No.PB08-CP-7249, Chassis No. WIIIS3L8216209, Engine No.MAT491005D6P33413 from M/s Cargo Motors Private Ltd., Cargo House, BSF Chowk, G.T.Road, Jalandhar, 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 from 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. 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 on the spot and on account of which FIR No.312 dated 27.12.2014 U/s 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, Police Station Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar was registered against the driver of Truck. Due to accident, the insured Vehicle became totally damaged. After the accident, Complainant immediately gave intimation about the accident to OPs and lodged claim with the OPs against the above mentioned Policy and also supplied all the relevant documents to OPs and fulfilled all the requirements as required under the law. Lastly, officials of the OPs 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 OPs, complainant also bring the insured vehicle at the workshop. But the OPs despite of all the requirements as required 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 got served the legal notice dated 28.05.2015 through his counsel to the OPs, but despite the service of the Legal Notice, the OPs refused to head the request of the complainant and the OPs neither released the claim amount nor given any satisfactory reply to complainant. Finally, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint titled as "Santokh Singh Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd" Complaint No. 345 of 2016, Date of Institution:10.08.2016 with the prayer directing the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs . 2,48,803/- i.e. invoice value of the total damaged insured Vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 18% P.A along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and the mental harassment, agony, frustration and loss of time, money and inconvenience suffered by the complainant on the part of the OPs along with Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalandhar vide order dated 21.02.2018 directed the OPs/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd to decide the insurance claim of the complainant, after appointing a Surveyor for getting assessment of the loss and accordingly this complaint was disposed off and OPs/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd are directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order dated 21.02.2018 and further, if any documents are required, the same be demanded from the complainant by way of Black and White, and if the claim of the complainant is not settled on either side within the aforesaid stipulated time, then the OPs/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd are liable to pay compensation to 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 OPs 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. After the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, complainant approached the officials of OP No.2 many times personally and also approached to the OPs on telephone and requested please to settled the claim of the complainant as early as possible as per the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, but the OPs did not bother to head the request of the Complainant. Thereafter, the complainant send various reminder to the OPs by way of Personal visits, phone calls and also through e-mails and also send the copy of the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalandhar and requested to settled the claim of the complainant as per the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, but till today the complainant has not received any response from the OPs and the claim of the complainant has not been settled nor given any satisfactory reply to complainant. Due to the indifferent and reluctant attitude of OPs, complainant suffered great mental tension, harassment, agony and loss of money and time from the hands of the OPs and negligent in settlement of the claim. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 23.08.2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint 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 a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and the mental harassment, agony, frustration and loss of time. Further, OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation as per order dated 21.02.2018 alongwith Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the complaint, in the interest of justice.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint against the OPs No.1 & 2 is not maintainable as the complainant till date has neither produced the vehicle for Survey for the assessment of Loss not has provided nor produced on record the documents of the vehicle such as Route Permit and Fitness Certificate of the vehicle bearing No. PB-08-CP-7249, Driving Licence of Palwinder Singh S/O Lachhaman Singh not has come forward for filling of the claim form, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. The complainant till date has neither produced the vehicle for Survey for the assessment of Loss not has provided nor produced on record the documents of the vehicle such as Route Permit and Fitness Certificate of the vehicle bearing No.PB-08-CP-7249, Driving Licence of Palwinder Singh S/O Lachhaman Singh not has come forward for filling of the claim form, as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to taking insurance of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant was the owner of vehicle TATA Ace Zip BS-III bearing registration No.PB08-CP-7249. He purchased the vehicle from M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.2,48,803/- as per Invoice Ex.C-1 and the RC Ex.C-2. It is also not disputed rather proved that the vehicle was insured and the insurance policy has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-3. The vehicle met with an accident and as per the allegations of the complainant, there was a total damage to the vehicle and the FIR has been proved as Ex.C4. Earlier the complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Forum seeking the claim from the insurance company for the loss occurred due to the accident. Vide order dated 21.02.2018, the Ld. Consumer Forum disposed of the complaint with the direction to the OPs to appoint Surveyor for getting assessment of the loss and to decide the insurance claim of the complainant and the documents required for settling the claim were ordered to be demanded from the complainant. The complainant has proved on record the emails Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-20 to prove that from time to time the complainant has been asking the OPs to assess the loss after appointment of Surveyor as per the order dated 21.02.2018, but the OPs never appointed the Surveyor nor asked the complainant to produce the vehicle for the assessment of the loss, therefore, he filed the present complaint.
7. Perusal of these emails Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-20 show that the complainant has sent the emails to the customer support and none of the email has been sent to ICICI Lombard Insurance i.e. the OPs. Only the legal notice dated 30 October, 2018 has been sent to the OPs. This shows that all the emails Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-20 were never sent to the OPs. As per the submission of the complainant, the vehicle has already been repossessed by the Finance Company with whom the vehicle was hypothecated, therefore, now it cannot be produced for assessment of the loss. Perusal of the document attached with the reply to the application by the complainant, shows that the complainant Santokh Singh had already surrendered his vehicle to the M/s L & T Finance Co. Ltd. on 04.05.2017, meaning thereby that during the pendency of the previous complaint, which was filed on 10.08.2016, the vehicle was not with the complainant, the same was already repossessed by the M/s L & T Finance Co. Ltd. on 04.05.2017. This fact has never been brought by the complainant to the notice of the Commission. The emails sent by the complainant to the customer care ICICI Lombard shows that in all these emails also the complainant has nowhere stated that the vehicle has already been repossessed by the M/s L & T Finance Co. Ltd. rather in all the emails, the complainant has requested the OPs to appoint the Surveyor and to assess the loss, but he has not intimated that the loss cannot be assessed as the vehicle has already been repossessed by the M/s L & T Finance Co. Ltd., which is finance company. As per the submission of the complainant, the vehicle was completely damaged and the same has already been sold. The photographs have been filed on record by the complainant to show that it was completely damaged, but from the photographs produced on record, though apparently it seems that the vehicle is damaged fully, but the vehicle nowhere shows the registration number to prove that this is the same vehicle regarding which the present complaint has been filed. Once there is no vehicle nor the same can be produced for assessment of the loss, therefore it cannot be said that the OPs have not complied with the order of the Court. More so, when on the day of passing the order by the Ld. District Commission, the vehicle was not with the complainant rather the same was with the M/s L & T Finance Co. Ltd., so, it cannot be said that there was intentional delay on the part of the OPs. In such circumstances, no such order can be passed directing the OP to pay the claim, once the loss has not been assessed due to the fault of the complainant. So, from all the angles, the complainant has failed to prove his case and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. 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 Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.09.2022 Member Member President
