STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Balkar Singh s/o Jagir Singh, r/o # 201, Phase 11, Mohali.

---Appellant/Complainant

Versus

[1]    ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited, Quiet Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

[2]    United Car Care through its Prop. Rajinder Pasricha, SCO No. 64, Back Side, Sector 11, Panchkula.

        (Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dt. 12.10.2012).

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties  

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:  

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

                Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy from Opposite Party No.1, for his Indica DLGTC car, bearing Regn. No. PB 65G 5787 for the period from 17.01.2009 to 16.01.2010 for the IDV of Rs.3,21,533/-.  The car met with an accident on 6.6.2009, when it was being driven by his driver Bachan Kumar. The accident occurred at the roundabout of Sectors 10, 11, 14 and 15, Panchkula at 9.30 PM when the truck which was going ahead of the vehicle, suddenly applied brakes, as a result whereof the car hit the rear side of the same. Another vehicle i.e. an Indica car also rammed into the rear side of the car of the complainant at the same time, as a result of which a major loss was caused to the vehicle.  It was stated that the driver of the car was having a valid and effective driving licence. The driver lodged a DDR with Police Station, Sector 10, Panchkula, on 7.6.2009 (Annexure C-2). The complainant, thereafter, informed the insurance company about the accident. He was directed to take the vehicle to Opposite Party No.2.         It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 appointed a surveyor who gave approval for the repair of the vehicle. It was further stated that the complainant meanwhile visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 a number of times, to get delivery of his car but the same was finally made available on 19.8.2009 against the bill of Rs.1,48,002/-.  It was further stated that the complainant was shocked when he was asked to make payment as he was expecting a cashless facility. The complainant took delivery of the car from Opposite Party No.2, after giving them an assurance that he would make payment to them, in case, the Insurance Company did not make payment. Eventually, he had to make payment from his own pocket. It was further stated that as the repairer was taking a considerable time to repair the vehicle, in order to teach a lesson to it (repairer), he made a statement before the Investigator, appointed by the Insurance Company, that he himself was driving the vehicle, and the accident had taken at a different place.  It was further stated that this statement was made, at the  instigation of the Investigator, as at that time, he did not know that it would affect the payment of his claim. It was further stated that even the complainant himself had an effective and valid driving licence, and hence, the Insurance Company could not back out of making payment of his genuine claim. The complainant received a repudiation letter (Annexure C-3) dated 1.10.2009 from Opposite Party No.1, on the ground, that the place of accident and driver had been changed. It was further stated that the complainant sent a copy of the affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate to Opposite Party No.1, by registered post, to assist it in payment of his claim.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was threatening to take possession of the vehicle, in the event, the complainant failed to make payment of the bill.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 wrongly repudiated the claim. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1, stated that the complainant himself admitted in Para No. 10 of the complaint that he was himself driving the vehicle and not his driver. The complainant admitted that he made a statement that the place of accident was different from the place mentioned in the claim form. It was further stated that the complainant purposely gave false and misleading information to Opposite Party No.1 to raise a false claim.   It was further stated that perhaps the accident even did not take place as alleged.  Even the DDR was wrong and hence, denied. It was further stated that it was only an intimation which could not inspire any confidence, in view of the admitted statement by the complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant admitted that he made statement before the Investigator that he himself and not the driver was driving the vehicle and the accident did not take place at the place intimated earlier. It was further stated that, the accident was concocted. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.09.2010.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle which was got insured for the period from 17.01.09 to 16.01.10 and the said vehicle met with an accident at Panchkula on 06.06.09 when the same was being driven by Sh.Bachan Kumar.  He further submitted that the driver of the said car was having a valid and effective driving licence. The  DDR was also lodged with P.S Sector 10 Panchkula on 07.06.09. He further submitted that the complainant informed the Insurance Company which appointed the surveyor and after his approval, the vehicle was got repaired from Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that the vehicle was made available on 19.08.09 after its repairs and a bill of Rs.1,48,002/- was raised. As Opposite Party No.1 refused to pay the said amount, the complainant himself paid the said bill and took delivery of the vehicle.  He further submitted that as the repairer took a long time to repair the vehicle, therefore, in order to teach a lesson to the repairer, he made a wrong statement, before the Investigator that he himself was driving the vehicle and the accident took place at a different place but he was not aware of the fact that this misstatement  would have adverse effect on his genuine claim.  He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate this fact that the complainant out of frustration made the wrong statement regarding the place of accident and driver of the vehicle because Opposite Party No.2, was delaying the repairs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.                   On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent/Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated, as the complainant himself misstated the facts regarding the place of accident and name of the driver and, as such, he breached the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy which was a contract based on the principle of “umberrima fide” i.e. utmost good faith. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.                 Admittedly, in the complaint and the DDR at page 97 of the District Forum file,  the place of accident and the name of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, were totally different from the one disclosed by the complainant before the investigator in his statement at page 157 of the District Forum file. This fact was fairly admitted by the complainant in para No.10 of his complaint. As per the submission of the Counsel for the complainant, in fact, the accident took place at Panchkula, and the name of the driver who was driving the vehicle was Bachan Kumar, and the same found mention in the complaint as well as in the DDR but due to intolerable behaviour of the Opposite Parties, and, out of frustration, the complainant made a different statement, before the Investigator and the same ought not be considered and the genuine claim be ordered to be paid.  The reasons given by the complainant, for giving misstatement, before the Investigator are vague and not plausible in the eye of law and hence, the same are rejected. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the complainant concocted the accident, so as to lodge a false claim. He, thus, himself violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, which was a contract on the principle of uberrima fide i.e. of utmost good faith, by misstating the facts regarding the place of accident and the name of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident and, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that respondent/Opposite Party No.1, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.                 The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,  with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

January 16, 2013                       [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg