ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 24-25, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

IInd Address:-

Mailing Address:-

Ground and Fourth Floor, Interface 11, Office No.401 and 402, New Linking Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064.

Corporate Address:-

ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025, through its General Manager.

 ……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

V e r s u s

1.Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Shamsher Singh, R/o Vill. Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

....Respondent No.1/complainant

2.Broadway Auto Engineers, Authorized Dealer, Force Motor-PVD, Plot No.75, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Managing Director

....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2

3.Force Motors Limited, Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune, Post Code 411035, through its Managing Director.

....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

               MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“Accordingly, we allow this complaint against Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to take immediate steps to appoint a Surveyor to assess the loss and to submit his survey report and accordingly, indemnify the loss to the Complainant in terms of the Surveyor’s report, after dismantling the vehicle. Besides, Opposite Party No.1 will also pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to the Complainant, as they have not even appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, which is mandatory as per the IRDA. Opposite Party No.1 will also pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. The complaint qua Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 is dismissed.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.”

2.           

3.            for the period from 21.02.2012 to the midnight of 20.02.2013, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.10,38,952/-, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.36,645/-. It was stated that while using the vehicle, the complainant noticed that its cluster meter was showing wrong information. There was a leakage of coolant, driver side mirror were showing moisture, blower and the A.C., was not working properly. The vehicle was also overheating, with increase in temperature, even during small rides. The complainant brought the said defects, to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, which made attempts to rectify the same. The expansion tank leakage was replaced under warranty. Defect in the right hand side mirror of the vehicle was noted, but was not replaced, as it was not available. Opposite Party No.2 detected that cooling of the A.C. was not effective and the blower was not properly functioning, for which ECU was replaced, under warranty. It was further stated that the defects aforesaid, had occurred, when the vehicle, in question, had covered 10060 Kms only. 

4.           

5.            

6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.        11.         

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        

16.         

17.        

18.         this purpose, in our considered opinion, it would be in the fitness of things, if the case is remanded back to the District Forum, for deciding the same, afresh, after taking into consideration, the survey report, and evidence to be led, by the parties, in respect of the same, as also the evidence already led.

19.        

20.        

21.            The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (II) on 24.01.2014, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.

22.             

23.             

24.             

Pronounced.

January 10, 2014

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg