State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balwinder Kumar Son Of Sh. Kirpal Chand` vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 19 December, 2012
1
First appeal No. 1311 of 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1311 of 2008
Date of institution : 17.11.2008
Date of Decision : 19.12.2012
Balwinder Kumar son of Sh. Kirpal Chand, Resident of House no. 2167,
Mohalla Nai Abadi, District Jalandhar (Punjab).
...Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Nirmal
Complex, G.T.Road, Jalandhar City through its manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Narain
Manzil, 3rd Floor, Barakhamba, road.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 24-25,
Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank
Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400 051 India through its
Managing Director.
...Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order dated
15.07.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate
For respondent : None
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is complainant's appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the Learned 2 First appeal No. 1311 of 2008 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') vide which the complaint was partially allowed and the complainant was held entitled to 75% of compensation on non standard basis amounting to Rs.51,542.09/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that he got insured his Chevrolet Tavera Car with the OP/respondent for Rs.5,60,000/- for the period from 05.10.2005 to 04.10.2007. The car met with an accident on 05.01.2007 regarding which intimation was sent to the OP which appointed a surveyor. The vehicle was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs.70,234/- and the claim was lodged with the OP but they did not pay any amount. The complainant therefore, filed the present complaint for a direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.70,234/- along with interest @18% per annum, Rs.25,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.
3. The complaint was contested by the OP alleging that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his acts, conduct and admission and that the vehicle was being used for a commercial purpose in violation of the policy conditions and therefore, no compensation can be paid. On merits it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with them, that intimation was received about the same having been met with an accident upon which the Surveyor was appointed. They however, denied if the complainant is entitled to any compensation.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum partially allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.07.2008 as mentioned in para no.1 above. The complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3 First appeal No. 1311 of 2008
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. None appeared for the respondent.
7. The learned District Forum ordered the payment of the compensation on non-standard basis on the ground that as per report Ex.O- 4 of the investigator the vehicle was being used for hire and reward which was in violation of the conditions of the policy. The ground given by the investigator in his report Ex.O-4 is that the average income of the complainant is Rs.5,000/- per month, that his income tax return shows his earning as Rs.1,29,206/- per annum whereas, he is required to repay the loan in monthly installments to the extent of Rs.1,84,680/- per annum. It was reported that the complainant has no agricultural land and therefore, he is using the vehicle as taxi. It was submitted that the car has covered 889426 Km in 15 months. It was due to this reason that the claim submitted by the complainant was filed as no claim and the complainant was informed vide Ex.O-3 that the car was being used for commercial purpose. The complainant produced his income tax return Ex.C-18 showing his total income of Rs.1,39,774/- whereas his account statement shows that he is paying installments of Rs.15390/- per month. The complainant has not been able to show as to where from he is getting income for repaying the installments. The odometer of the car also shows that the same is being extensively used that is why it has covered 89426 Km in 15 months which means 6,000 Km per month. We are therefore, of the opinion that the facts and figures show that the vehicle is being used by the complainant as a commercial use in contravention of the conditions of the policy.
8. The learned counsel referred to the case "New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Ravi Narang" II (2011) CPJ 241 in which case the vehicle which was being used for commercial purpose was stolen. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that in case of theft of vehicle the breach of 4 First appeal No. 1311 of 2008 condition is not germane. However, in the present case it is not a case of theft but a case of accident where the use of vehicle is germane to policy.
9. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly allowed the claim on non standard basis. The impugned order is perfectly just and proper and there is no scope for interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
(Jagroop Singh Mahal) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member 19th December, 2012 Rashmi