Consumer Case No CC/18/210

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Consumer Case No. CC/18/210

         Registered on. 02/11/2018

         Decided on.      30/12/2022

  Shrimati Jayashri Santosh Gavale

                      Age - Nil, Occupation – Business

                     R/o Manyali, Tal. Umerkhed, Dist. Yavatmal

..... Complainant

   Versus

                    1.  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

                        Through Branch Manager,

     Peshve Plot, Near Postal Ground,

     Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal

   ..... Opponent

Before

                    Hon’ble Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Hemraj L. Thakur, Member

Appearances

Adv. M.R. Oswal, For complainant

Adv. D.V. Tijare For Opponent

JUDGEMENT

(Delivered on 30/12/2022)

Hon’ble President Shri Nandkumar M. Waghmare

1. This is a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking insurance claim against the vehicular accident.

2. The Complainants case in nutshell is that :-

The complainant is resident of Manyali, Tal.Umerkhed, District Yavatmal. She is having one Max Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero Truck bearing registration Number MH 37 J 0035. The complainant has insured this vehicle by paying premium to the opponent and valid insurance period of the policy was in between 30/10/2015 to 20/10/2015.

3.  The complainant’s further contention  is that on 13/4/2016, her truck was running from Umerkhed to Barad and at that time one tractor came from opposite side. It gave dash to the complainant’s Bolero truck which caused damage to the  complainant’s truck. The complainant had immediately informed to the opponent about said accident. But the opponent has not appointed surveyor to assess the damage. The complainant herself repaired her truck and paid repairing cost of Rs.1/-lakh. The complainant had issued notice dated 7/2/2018 to the opponent about the insurance claim. But it was not replied. Therefore, the complainant has filed present complaint and urged to grant compensation of Rs.1/-lakh.

4. The opponent-Insurance Company has filed written statement at ex. No 10. It is conteded by the opponent that the complainant has neither informed said accident nor submitted claim form to it. The said accident took place in Nanded District. Therefore, this Commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the vehicle  was not holding driving licence. The complainant has not submitted requisite documents to the opponent. Therefore the opponent could not assess the said accident. The complaint is meritless. Hence it is liable to dismissed.

5. The complainant has filed Xerox copies of insurance policy, FIR, Spot panchanama, Photos of Accident, Receipts of bill, and notice issued to insurance company and its acknowledgement.

6. Considering the arguments placed on the record as well as on perusal of the documents alongwith these pros and cons following points arise for our determination. We have recorded findings thereon with the reasons stated hereinafter.

Reasons

As to Issue no 1 to 3

7. In the instance case, it appears from the entire evidence available on record that the complainant has just pleaded the date of accident and filed its FIR. FIR shows that the said accident took place in Nanded District. ‘Even for the sake of moment’, it is assumed that this Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the vehicle was insured at Yavatmal itself. But the question remains here whether the complainant has informed the said accident to the opponent as it is manadatory under Section 134 of Motor Vehicle Act. It appears in the complaint that it is just mentioned therein that the complainant has informed to the opponent about the said accident. But there is no evidence to that effect or even the date of information is not mentioned in the pleedings.

8. It is relevant to mention here that the complainant has not filed R.C. Book or not relevant papers either with this complaint or submitted to the opponent.

9. It further reveals that the complainant has not argued in her pleading that the such and such date she has submitted claim form to the opponent. In fact it was bounden duty of the complainant to submit the claim form to the opponent. But the complainant did not care to file claim form and requisite documents to the opponent. The complainant has also not filed driving licence of the driver of the truck which looks suspicious. Unless the claim form or the accident is intimated to the opponent, there can be no appointment of surveyor and if surveyor is not appointed then the insurance company cannot examine damage of the said truck.

10.    In this regard, apart from the above merits, we have to see that once the insurance claim is not submitted to the insurance company, then how one can insist for the compensation. Here in this case, the complainant has not filed any proof to show that complainant had informed or intimated said accident to the opponent or she had filed insurance claim. In absence of evidence it can be safely held that the complainant was not interested in insurance claim earlier. But she had tried to get insurance by filing this complaint only. It is belated thought.   

11.    After considering all the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the complainant could not establish her insurance claim.  Hence the compliant deserves to be dismissed. In view of all these facts, we answer all the points accordingly and proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies be provided free of costs to the parties.

 (Hemraj Thakur)                     (Nandkumar N. Waghmare)

       Member                                             President

Dt.   30 December 2022

CGM