Date of Filing:17.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:26.02.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1592 OF 2008<br /> <br /> M/s. Hexagon Engineers Ltd.,<br /> No. 93/ (Between 11th and 12th Cross)<br /> Margosa Road, Malleswaram<br /> Bangalore 560 003<br /> Rept. by its Managing Director<br /> B. Shankarlingm Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. ICICI Lombard General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> (Commercial Vehicle Department)<br /> Prestige Cornice, NO. 62/1<br /> 2nd Floor, Richmond Road<br /> Bangalore 560 025<br /> <br /> 2. S. Dinendra Singh<br /> Area Manager-Customer Service, Motors<br /> M/s. ICICI Lombard General <br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> 2nd Floor, S.V.R. Complex, Madivala<br /> Koramangala, Bangalore 560 068 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of Bajaj Tempo Trax bearing No. KA 04 4704. Vehicle was insured with the first opposite party. Policy was valid for a period from 08.09.2005 to 07.09.2006. The said vehicle met with accident on 18.06.2006 at Sarjapur Main Road. Complainant informed same to the opposite parties and submitted claim form on 28.08.2006. On 12.03.2008 complainant sent letter to first opposite party requesting to settle the claim at earliest as per the norms and terms of the insurance policy. It is submitted there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There is obligation on the part of the opposite parties to settle the claim at the earliest. Inspite of notice opposite parties neither replied nor settled the claim. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and defence version filed stating that complainant has not given any opportunity to conduct the spot survey in order to know what is the extent of damages caused to the vehicle. The opposite parties appointed G. Venkatesh, independent surveyor and loss assessor immediately after the receipt of the intimation and accordingly surveyor had assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 23,163/- and report was submitted on 27.10.2006. Complainant has produced fitness certificate, FIR, charge sheet and permit, but has not produced driving license and in view of non-production of the documents opposite parties have written letter calling upon the complainant to produce Driving License. But so far the complainant has submitted driving license. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by opposite parties that driver of the vehicle was not having valid Driving License to drive the vehicle. If at all the Hon’ble forum holds that opposite party is liable to pay compensation then same is limited to the surveyor’s report. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the complaint is pre-mature one?”<br /> 5. As per the case of the complainant it is clear that the opposite parties have not repudiated the claim so far. The claim submitted by the complainant is still pending for settlement. The opposite parties in the defence version at para 9 submitted that complainant has produced fitness certificate, Police documents like FIR and charge sheet and permit for settlement of the claim but the complainant has not produced the driving license of the driver. In view of non-production of the DL, the opposite parties have written letters on 29.02.2007 and again on 16.03.2007. But so far, the complainant has not submitted the DL. Therefore, the claim is not yet settled. The opposite parties have clearly stated that the claim has not been repudiated. Therefore, the present complaint is pre-mature one. The complainant has not produced documents to show that claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties’ company. Even it is not the case of the complainant that his claim has been repudiated or rejected by the opposite parties. So under these circumstances the complainant has to produce required documents before the opposite parties and after repudiation of the claim the complainant would have approach the Consumer Forum. The opposite party shall not keep the claim undecided for indefinite period if the complainant fails to produce necessary documents the opposite parties will be ready to decide the claim as per rules and regulations and policy conditions. The opposite parties should take decision immediately and communicate the same to the complainant. The opposite parties cannot wait for the submission of documents indefinitely. If the complainant produces documents as required by rules and regulations then it is well and good. In case the complainant fails to produce driving license or any other documents the company will be at liberty to decide the claim as per policy conditions and regulations and communicate the order to the complainant. It is argued by the counsel for the opposite party that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license. If it is so the opposite parties are at liberty to treat the claim as “non-standard claim”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in several cases has held that if the vehicle is used contrarily to the terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company has to treat the claim as “non-standard claim”. The Insurance Company will be at liberty to allow the claim partly after some deduction. Therefore, it is up to the opposite parties to take just, fair and reasonable decision. With this observation the complaint filed at present is pre-mature one and same deserves to be dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties to settle the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of this order. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed as it is pre-mature one. However, the opposite parties are directed to settle the claim within 30 days from the date of this order and intimate the same to the complainant. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />