State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Amit Arora S/O Gulshan Rai Arora on 7 March, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1395 of 2010
Date of institution : 09.08.2010
Date of Decision : 07.03.2014
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at
Nakodar Road, Numhal, District Jalandhar.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051.
Both 1 & 2 through their Authorized Signatory, Regional Manager, (Legal) ,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
Quiet Office no.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.
...Appellants/OPs
Versus
Amit Arora S/o Gulshan Rai Arora, resident of Mohalla Ranjit Nagar
Rervan, Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
...Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 20.05.2010 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri H.S.Guram, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate
For respondent : Ex-parte
First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 2
ORDER
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant / Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 20.05.2009 in consumer complaint no.11 of 2008 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Sh. Amit Arora filed the complaint under the Act against the OPs on the averment that he got insured his vehicle Tata Indigo Car bearing registration no.PB 33- 6433 on 13.10.2006 on payment of premium of Rs.21469 for the risk covered of the vehicle valid for the period from 13.10.2006 to 12.10.2007. Unfortunately, the said insured vehicle met with an accident on 26.05.2007 in District Moga and driver surjan Singh and two other passengers had died. The vehicle was totally damaged. The complainant lodged the complaint with the Police vide FIR no.62 dated 27.05.2007 in Police Station, Mehna, District Moga against the driver of Jeep. Then the OP demanded from the complainant to pay Rs.13,000/- to M/s Nagi Motors, Moga on account of recovery van and for the charges of preparation of estimate. The complainant paid Rs.13,000/- to M/s Nagi Motors, Moga. The salvage of the vehicle was taken on Spurdhari from Court of Magistrate Moga & delivered the same to Nagi Motors as per the instructions of OP. The complainant filed the claim application form for settlement of his claim with the OP but nothing was heard for the period of six months and thereafter, a legal notice dated 12.11.2007 was served upon the OPs. It was pleaded that the OP agreed to pay the claim amount First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 3 of Rs.5,50,000/- and a blank stamp paper was given to him on 20.11.2007 by its agent Satpal on the pretext of the settlement of his claim after the completion of the requisite formalities. He signed the blank paper and it was also signed by his father and his friend as desired by the insurance company. After few days the complainant received Photostat copy of the documents "Indemnity cum declaration undertaking" signed by the complainant in which it was mentioned that the OP is ready to pay the amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as claim statement to the complainant according to the terms and conditions of the forged documents. It was pleaded that the complainant had never agreed to this settlement and he protested by sending a legal notice to the OP and asked for the payment of Rs.5,50,000/- as per the terms of the oral settlement but the OPs failed to honour the same which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs to pay Rs.6,07,000/- on account of the total loss of the vehicle alongwith interest and to pay Rs.13,000/- charged for the transportation of the salvage and to pay Rs.11000/- as legal expenses and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. Upon notice the OPs filed reply by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact; complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action to file the complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct; the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, the insurance of the vehicle was admitted. The insurance company denied the allegation of the mis-representation or coercion or indemnity undertaking on any blank stamp paper as alleged by the complainant. The same was voluntarily signed by the complainant and attested by its witnesses for full First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 4 and final settlement of the claim to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/-. It was submitted that amount had already been paid to the complainant and the present complaint is concocted and thought of story to extort more money from the company. It was denied that if any amount was paid to M/s Nagi Motors, Moga. It was also denied that the OPs have ever made any oral settlement for the payment of claim of Rs.5,50,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations complainant filed affidavits Ex.C- A1, Ex.C-A/2, Ex.C-A/3 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. On the other hand, OP tendered documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-11.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.05.2009 and directed the OPs to pay to the complainant insurance amount of Rs.5,25,000/- and Rs.7000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.05.2009, the OPs have come up in the appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum has completely ignored the fact that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as admittedly the claim was settled full and final on 20.11.2007 and an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was released to the Banker of the complainant since the vehicle was hypothecated with them. Although the District Forum has given the finding that the discharge voucher and the indemnity bond has been rightly executed but has gone to heed that the OP's Company is liable to release Rs.2 lac more to the complainant as the amount of salvage. It is relevant to mention here that a discharge voucher clearly provides that the amount of Rs.3,25,000/- First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 5 including the amount of salvage which shall be kept by the OP's Company. The District Forum has gravely error while not appreciating the fact that said amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was arrived upon on the basis of Surveyor report dated 21.11.2007 wherein the entire loss has been duly discussed and scrutinized. The finding of the learned District Forum regarding Rs.7000/- as compensation is liable to be set-aside and prayed that the appeal may be accepted and order passed by the District Forum be set- aside.
8. As per the order of this Commission, dated 15.10.2010 the respondent was proceeded against Ex-parte.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured his vehicle Tata Indigo Car bearing registration no.PB 33 C 0433 by the OP on 13.10.2006 vide insurance cover note no.PD-3303960. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.21469 for the risk covered of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.6,07,060/- for the period from 13.10.2006 to 12.10.2007 Ex.C-
1. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.576707/-, the said vehicle met with an accident on 26.05.2007 in District Moga and at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Surjit Singh, driver. The complaint was lodged with the Police vide FIR no.62 dated 27.05.2007 in Police Station, Mehna District Moga Ex.C-2. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the driving license of Surjan Singh Ex.C-3. The indemnity cum declaration undertaking Ex.C-5 dated 20.10.2010 is admittedly signed by the complainant and also attested by his father and his friend and further attested by Notary, Jalandhar in which the insured had agreed to make the payment of Rs.3,25,000/- to the insured on cash loss basis for the amount of damages to the vehicle involved in a road accident and the insured First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 6 accepted the same as full settlement. This document has been questioned by the complainant on the plea of mis-representation that his signature and his father and friend were procured by the agent of the insurance company on a blank stamp paper under the impression that his claim of Rs.5,50,000/- as per oral settlement will be paid. However, in our opinion the plea of mis-representation or coercion for the execution of this document does not stand tenable because the insured was not alleged to sign the blank stamp paper more so the Notary Public would not attest the same without its signatures of executants in person. Therefore, neither full particulars of mis-representation nor convincing evidence has been adduced to establish the same. The complainant has placed on record the affidavit of one Narinder Kumar and Sh. Gulshan Rai Arora vide Ex.C-A/3 and Ex.C-A/4 which does not advance the case of complainant in any manner. However, cash loss had been assessed after taking salvage value to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- which is also binding upon the OPs. Accordingly, the learned District Forum ordered the OPs to take back the salvage and pay Rs.2 lacs to the complainant taking the amount to Rs.5,25,000/- which is quite equitable. Counsel for the appellant was unable to prove how the order so passed by the District Forum is not genuine.
11. Sequel from the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and there is no need for any interference. The same is affirmed and upheld. The appeal of the appellant is meritless and same is dismissed.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.02.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
First Appeal No.1395 of 2010 7
14. The appellants/OPs have deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with his Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant/respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member (H.S.Guram) Member March 07, 2014 Rs