DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===============

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

---Complainant

Vs

[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.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                  PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                    MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. Hitender Kansal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                The Complainant had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy from Opposite Party No.1 for his Indica DLGTC car bearing Regn. No. PB 65G 5787 from 17.01.2009 to 16.01.2010. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.3,21,533/- (Policy Annexure C-1). The Complainant has stated that 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 10, 11, 14, 15, Panchkula at 9.30 PM when the truck which was going ahead of the vehicle suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which the Complainant’s car hit the rear side of the truck. 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.

                   The Complainant has stated that the driver of the car had a valid and effective driving license. The driver lodged a DDR with the 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, who is the authorized service centre on the panel of Opposite Party No.1.          The Opposite Party appointed a surveyor who gave approval for the repair of the vehicle and assured the Complainant that the vehicle would be repaired to his satisfaction expeditiously.

                   The Complainant meanwhile visited the office of the Opposite Party number of times to get delivery of his car. The car was finally made available on 19.8.2009. A bill of Rs.1,48,002/- was raised.  The Complainant has stated that he 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.

                   The Complainant has also stated that as the repairer was taking a considerable time to repair the vehicle, in order to teach a lesson to the 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.  The Complainant has alleged that this statement was made at the Investigator’s enticing, as at that time, he did not know that it would affect the payment of his claim. He has further stated that even he himself had an effective and valid driving licence and hence, the insurance company should not back out from making payment of his genuine claim. The Complainant has received a repudiation letter dated 1.10.2009 from Opposite Party No.1 on the ground that the place of accident and driver has been changed (Annexure C-3).

                   The Complainant has placed on record a copy of a sworn affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, sent to Opposite Party No.1 by registered post, to aid in payment of his claim.

                   The Complainant has further stated that Opposite Party No.2 is now threatening to take possession of the vehicle in the event the Complainant fails to make payment of the bill (Para 17).

                   Due to repudiation by the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint, with a prayer that Opposite Party No.1 be directed to make payment of the repair charges to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 be directed to not take possession of the vehicle. The Complainant has also prayed for interest and compensation.

2.                After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                Opposite Party No.1 in reply, as well as in the affidavit of Ms. Gurpreet, Manager, ICICI Lombard GIC, has stated that the Complainant has himself admitted in Para No. 10 that he was himself driving the vehicle and not his driver. He has also admitted that he has made a statement that the place of accident was different from the place mentioned in the claim form. The Complainant has purposely given false and misleading information to Opposite Party No.1 to raise a false claim.  Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that perhaps the accident even did not take place as alleged.

                   On merits, Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that as per the Complainant’s own statement there is a variation in the place and the name of the driver. The accident is doubtful. Even the DDR is wrong and hence, denied. It is only an intimation which cannot inspire any confidence in view of the admitted statement by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has also stated that the Complainant has himself admitted that he had 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.

                   Opposite Party No.1 has attached the final survey report (motor), along with the affidavit of Mr. Jatin Arora, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, at Annexure R-1. The assessed amount for repair of vehicle is Rs.77,900/-. Opposite Party No.1 has also attached an investigation report of Er. Sachin Gulati, Insurance Claims Investigator and a statement of Sh. Balkar Singh, wherein the place and driver of the car at the time of accident are given.

                   Denying all other averments of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                As none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 30.09.2010.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and have perused the record.

7.                The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties are denying payment of his genuine claim for the damage occurred to his car in an accident. In this regard, the certain observations made by the Investigator in his report need to be examined, which are as under:-

                   The Complainant has stated in the complaint that the vehicle was being driven by his driver and the accident occurred at Panchkula. He has further added that he had made a misstatement to the Investigator that the accident occurred at a different place. He has also himself stated that though the vehicle was being driven by his driver, he has given a statement that the vehicle was being driven by him. The Opposite Party No.1 placing reliance on these misstatements of the Complainant has choosen to repudiate the claim, as they feel that even the accident has perhaps not taken place. Interestingly, even Para 17 of the complaint is in contradiction to Para 9 wherein the Complainant has stated that he has already made payment to Opposite Party No.2.  

8.                The Opposite Party No.1 have placed on record statement dated 6.6.2009 given by Sh. Balkar Singh in his own writing to prove their stand. As per this statement, the accident occurred near Kharar on return from Anandpur Sahib to Mohali. As per this statement, a swift car coming from the link road to the main road collided with the back of the car of the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that he was alone at that time and no injury was caused to him. It is also mentioned that no police report was made and that he is a property dealer, while the car is on loan from HDFC Bank. A comparison with the DDR No. 17 dated 7.6.2009 placed on record by the Complainant gives the version that the car was being driven by Bachan Kumar driver of the Complainant. The vehicle met with an accident near the round about of 10, 11, 14, 15, Panchkula when a truck going ahead of the Complainant’s vehicle suddenly applied brakes. The Complainant could not stop his car so it collided with the truck from behind, due to which there was heavy loss to the car. The driver of the truck fled from the spot and due to nervousness, the truck number was also not noted down. It has been further mentioned that a car behind the car of the Complainant collided with the car from the back side and due to the two accidents both the front and back of the car were damaged. No one was injured.

                   The statement of the Complainant placed on record by the Opposite Party, as well as the DDR lodged by the driver of the Complainant are both contradictory.   

          The contract of insurance is based on the principle of good faith. The principle of "uberrima fidei" clearly brings out that the contracting parties need to have absolute trust in each other.  It is necessary that parties do not mislead or make misstatements to the other. The investigator has after analyzing the issue given the opinion that the claim be processed and settled as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

                   The insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the place of accident and driver has been changed in the documents submitted by the Complainant. We also agree with the opinion of the Opposite Party No.1, especially when the Complainant himself has conceded in the complaint that he has made misstatement to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have not only questioned the place of accident, as well as the driver, but have also questioned the occurrence of the accident itself. The Complainant has not given any rebuttal to this allegation of the Opposite Party. He has also not produced any cogent evidence to prove his case against the allegations of the Opposite Party.

9.                Hence, in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the complaint as he has not been able to satisfy us about the veracity of the claim. No costs.

10.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06^th August, 2012.                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER