BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.206 of 2018
Date of Instt.14.05.2018 Date of Decision: 28.09.2021
Vinod Datta, aged 47 years, son of Sh. K.G.Dutta, resident of 1027, Gurudwara Street, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. ..........Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard, 2nd Floor, Nirmal Complex, Near Swagat Palace, G.T Road, Jalandhar.
2. Cargo Motors Punjab (P) Limited, 40, G.T. Road, Opposite Police Lines, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Vipin Kanwar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Raman Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased one Activa 4G from OP no.2, vide invoice no. Vehinv PB020001-1718-01256 dated 09.06.2017 for Rs.51,437/-. The OP no.2 assured the complainant that they will get the insurance from OP no.1 as there are some ups between both of them and they also assured that OP no.1 is a good company and OP no.2 also took the guarantee of the services of OP no.1 and on such representation complainant paid premium of Rs.1956/- against the insurance of the said vehicle which is valid from 09.06.2017 to 08.06.2018. On 01.02.2018 brother-in-law of the complainant was going from Rama Mandi to Jandu Singha at 8.50 am on Activa bearing no. PB-08-DR-9240 when he reached near village Dahadhe opposite Vista Resorts, Dhadhe. He met with an accident due to rash and negligent of unknown auto rickshaw and at that time it was 9.05 am. Immediately, Rahul Pal informed the complainant regarding the said accident as such he left the said vehicle on spot. On the same day the complainant went to one of the branches of OP no.2 and informed them about accident because it was the nearest branch of OP no.2. The official of the said branch went to the spot along with complainant and they brought the vehicle at Rama Mandi Workshop. The official of OP no.2 assured the complainant that insurance is of cashless nature as such the complainant need not to worry and they will get the vehicle repaired without taking any penny from the complainant. OP no.2 got some forms signed from the complainant, which are blank. When the complainant had been visiting the workshop of OP no.2 time and again but they even did not started the repair of the work of vehicle of the complainant and had been putting of complainant on one pretext or the other. He also sent email to OPs in this regard but OP no.1 declined the claim of the complainant on the ground of lame excuses which are not at all sustainable. He also served a legal notice dated 13.04.2018 upon OPs through his counsel requesting them to get the vehicle repaired and to pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental humiliation and torture. The complainant got repaired the vehicle from Cargo Motors Jalandhar and there is bill to the tune of Rs.20,199/- The payment was given by the complainant vide cheque no. 000108 dated 24.04.2018 for Rs. 20,199/- drawn on HDFC Bank G.T Road, Jalandhar.
2. Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has concealed the material facts at the time of loss to the insurance company. On merits, it was averred that at the time of intimation of loss to insurance company, the complainant showed Rahul Pal brother in law of the complainant as driver of the insured vehicle instead of one Lakshay who was actually driving the vehicle. On intimation, Rajiv Dhawan Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss and Sh. Charanjit Singh Investigator was deputed to investigate the matter. Sh. Rajiv Dhawan Surveyor & Loss Assessor conducted the survey and submitted the survey report dated 24.03.2018 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.11,190/- with remarks that as per investigation report actual driver has not driving licence to drive the vehicle. As per investigation, Lakshay son of the complainant was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident and son of the complainant himself were not having any driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. In order to get the claim to which the complainant is not entitled as there is change of driver from Lakshay son of the complainant to Rahul Paul as Lakshay was not holding any driving licence to drive the scooter at the time of accident. As such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of misrepresentation and complainant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 30.03.2018. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. On merits, it was averred that the complainant had opted for insurance company for his vehicle as per his own will and OP no.2 has nothing to do with that. OP no.1 have done the insurance of the vehicle. OP no.2 had only handed over original registration certificate of the above said vehicle to complainant after procuring from the transport authorities. OP no.2 brought the vehicle of the complainant at its workshop only at the request made by the complainant to OP no.2. Rest of the averments made by the complainant was denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of VikashGoyal Manager Legal ICICI Lombard General Insurance as Ex.O-A along with copies of the documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-4. OP no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of I.D Sharma as Ex.OP-2/A and copy of document Memorandum & Articles of Association as Ex.OP-2/1 on the record.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record of the case very carefully.
6. This fact was admitted that complainant purchased one Activa 4G from OP no.2 vide invoice no. Vehinv PB02001-1718-01256 dated 09.06.2017 for Rs.51,437/-. The complainant insured the said vehicle from OP no.2, which was valid from 09.06.2017 to 08.06.2018. On 01.02.2018, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 01.02.2018 and complainant alleged that Mr. Rahul Pal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He gave intimation regarding this given to OPs. The price of the vehicle is Rs.51,437/-, this fact is clear from retail invoice Ex.C-2 which is placed on the record. The complainant paid premium of Rs. 1956/- against insurance of the vehicle in question, this fact is clear from Ex.C-3. Ex.C-4 is copy of registration certificate in the name of Vinod Dutta complainant, which was issued by Registering Authority, Jalandhar. The registration date is mentioned in this certificate as 09.06.2017. Ex.C-5 is copy of registration certificate of Rahul Paul, the date of registration is 15.07.2018. The complainant given the intimation of the above said accident to OP vide email dated 11.04.2018 Ex.C-6 on the record. The OPs rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.C-8 on the record. In this rejection letter, the OPs mentioned that due to misrepresentation of facts the claim was rejected.
7. On the other hand, OP no.1 relied upon affidavit of Vikash Goyal Manger Legal ICICI Lombard General Insurance as Ex.O-A on the record. This witness denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.1. He stated that the claim of the complainant rejected by OP no.1 due to misrepresentation of facts given to OP no.1 at the time of accident. Ex.O-1 is copy of insurance, which is valid from 09.06.2017 to 08.06.2018. Ex.O-2 is copy of report of surveyor Rajeev Dhawan dated 24.03.2018. This surveyor investigated the case and give remarks that “as per investigation report actual driver has no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.” Thus final assessed amount for the said vehicle is Rs.11,190/- only. Ex.O-3 is copy of investigation report, in which, it has been specifically mentioned in Final Conclusion:- “After investigation in our view, vehicle met with an accident when insured son was driving said vehicle as daily routine, but he not having driving licence. Insured also not having D/L so he produced Rahul’s D/L. His son received injury so he avoided meeting of us with his son. Insured did not cooperate.”
8. Sh. Charan Jeet Singh, Investigator Surveyor & Loss Assessor wrote letter dated 06.03.2018 to complainant that kindly provide the driving licence of Lakshay and give information regarding treatment of Lakshay for settlement of the case. Again on 18.02.2018 written letter to complainant regarding the above said documents but no reply was given by the complainant to OPs. The letters dated 06.03.2018 and 18.02.2018 placed on record. After that, when complainant has not given any information about the driving licence of the Lakshay or information from which hospital the treatment was given to Lakshay. The complainant has failed to do so, then OP no.1 rejected the claim of the complainant vide rejection letter Ex.O-4 dated 30.05.2018 on the record. In this letter, it has been specifically mentioned that “misrepresentation of facts (driver details are misrepresented at intimation/claim form from actual and try to hid the material facts.”
9. From perusal of entire record on the file, it has transpired that the complainant gave wrong information to OPs for settlement of his claim. When the vehicle in question met with an accident on 01.02.2018 the complainant told that Mr. Rahul Paul was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. But from perusal of Ex.O-2 report of Rajeev Dhawan Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Valuer dated 24.03.2018 , where it has been mentioned that as per investigation report actual driver has no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. Ex.O-3 is copy of investigation report , in which in column Final Conclusion : mentioned that Vehicle met with accident when insured’s son was driving said vehicle as daily routine, but he not having D/L. Insured also not having D/L so he produced Rahul’s D/L.”
10. The surveyor report is valuable piece of evidence for adjudication of the present case. The surveyor appointed under Insurance Act, 1938. The report of surveyor is the important document and we cannot discard the same. The complainant has concealed the material fact from the OPs. When accident occurred, then the insured vehicle was driven by Lakshay not by Rahul Pal. Lakshay was not having valid driving licence, so he is not entitle for claim amount. The lapse was on the part of the complainant and not OPs. The OPs also written letters dated 06.03.2018 and 18.02.2018 to the complainant for demanding valid driving licence of Lakshay and document regarding the treatment was given to Lakshay, but complainant failed to submit the same. In these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
11. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force in the submission of the complainant, therefore, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant without any costs. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
28th of September 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
Jaswant Singh Dhillon
(Member)
