State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ram Kumar Khanna vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 19 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1297 of 2007
Date of institution : 24.9.2007
Date of decision : 19.3.2012
Shri Ram Kumar Khanna aged 5 years proprietor M/s Shubham Embroideries, 3
Maqbool Road, Amritsar.
.......Appellant
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 108 Surya Tower, 5th Floor,
Space No.1, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager/Vice
President/Principal Officer.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 10.7.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None. For the respondents : None. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
VERSION OF THE APPELLANT:
The appellant had purchased Tata Indica car of 2004 Model on 5.11.2004 bearing registration certificate No.PB-02-AM-8460. It was insured by the respondents for the period from 5.11.2004 to 4.11.2005. The said car had met with an accident on 13.5.2005 at about 8.30 P.M. when it was being driven by Gautam Khanna son of the appellant on way from Batala to Amritsar. The car was badly damaged in this accident. Intimation was given to the respondents. The matter was also reported to the police of Police Station-Sadar, Amritsar (Police Post Verka) where DDR No.22 dated 19.5.2005 was recorded. First Appeal No.1297 of 2007. 2
2. It was further pleaded that the car had struck against the cycle of Chanan Singh. Chanan Singh had sustained injuries. He was hospitalized in the emergency ward of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar from where he was shifted to Amandeep Hospital, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The expenses for such treatment of the injured were paid by the appellant to the management of the hospital and also towards the ambulance charges and medicines. The final bill was prepared by the hospital authorities to the tune of Rs.90,500/-. Rs.12,480/- were for surgical instrument/equipments etc. and Rs.57,526/- were for the medicines. Rs.1,000/- were charged for the ambulance and Rs.3060/- for blood donation. The appellant had made the payment of Rs.20,000/- through cheque dated 19.5.2005 and Rs.30,000/- vide cheque dated 22.5.2005.
3. It was further pleaded that since the vehicle was insured with the respondents comprehensively covering all risks, therefore, the respondents were liable to reimburse the appellant. The insurance claim was lodged with the respondent. Legal notice dated 1.7.2005 was also served on them but to no effect. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.1,68,466/- along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Interest and costs were also prayed. VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. The respondents filed the written reply. It was pleaded that Chanan Singh was not impleaded as a party. The appellant had no locus-standi to claim any amount from the respondents for the alleged accident caused by him and against the amount spent on the medical treatment of a third party. As per the law, the claims arising out of third party insurance cover are governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are maintainable in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. Such claims are not determinable by the District Forums. The third party claims are not maintainable in the District Forum.
5. It was also pleaded that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The injured was admitted in the hospital on 14.5.2005 and was discharged on 21.6.2005. Bill No.607 of 6/2005 was First Appeal No.1297 of 2007. 3 forged. It was denied if any amount was payable by the respondent. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C-1. He also proved documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-62.
7. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Sat Parkash, Area Head Channel, Authorised Signatory of the respondents as Ex.R-1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5.
8. Learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.7.2007.
9. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
10. Record has been perused.
11. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondents. It had met with an accident on 13.5.2005 at 8.30 P.M. when Gautam Khanna son of the appellant had struck the car against the cycle of Chanan Singh. The car was got repaired in the workshop of M/s Raghav Motors who were having tie up with the respondents. Chanan Singh had suffered serious injuries. He was taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. From where he was shifted to Amandeep Hospital, G.T. Road, Amritsar. The appellant had spent an amount of Rs.1,68,466/- on the medical treatment of Chanan Singh.
12. This amount is a third party claim and the complaint regarding third party claim is not maintainable in the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was maintainable in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Therefore the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum.
14. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. First Appeal No.1297 of 2007. 4
15. The arguments in this case were heard on 9.3.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
March 19 , 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER