State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 8 January, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 631 of 2012
Date of institution: 18.5.2012
Date of Decision: 8.1.2015
Dinesh Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Devi Ram R/o H. No. 8/309-B, W.No. 8,
Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through its
authorized signatory, Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through its
M.D./Manager, Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi,
Mumbai - 400 034.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated 15.3.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vivek Rattan, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.3.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No.554 dated 18.7.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2012
2. In the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act'), it was alleged by the complainant against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as 'the OPs') that being owner of the Alto Car No. PB-13-R-2682. He got insured with Op No. 1 vide cover note no. 33507 for the period 18.12.2010 to 17.12.2011. However on 12.5.2011, the complainant met with an accident and suffered damage to the vehicle. He got it repaired the vehicle at the instance of Mr. Resham Singh for a sum of Rs. 3200/- inclusive of Rs. 2700/- incurred for spare parts vide bill No. 8946 dated 17.5.2011. The said employee/agent had assured for the refund of these charges. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to reimburse Rs. 3200/- spent by the complainant for repair charges, Rs. 50,000/- on account of deficiency in services, Rs. 30,000/- on account of deficiency and unfair trade practice and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was premature as no claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops and also failed to provide claim number, copy of FIR/DDR; the complaint was false, frivolous and vague in nature with the sole motive to gain illegally from the Ops; complicated questions of law and facts were involved, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court; the Hon'ble Forum had got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and that the complainant had got no locus- standi and cause of action to file this complaint. On merits, it was admitted that Policy No. 600/213070 covered under the category of 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2012 private vehicle was issued by the Ops in favour of the complainant. However, it was denied that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 12.5.2011. The complainant never intimated the Ops about the alleged loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant. He failed to give details of the accident and to supply the copy of the FIR/DDR, therefore, they were not liable to pay the amount as alleged in the complaint. The entire story regarding mis-behaviour by the officials of the Ops is concocted one. Complaint is without merit and it be dismissed.
3. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
4. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavits Exs. C-1 & 2, I. Card Ex. C-3, newspaper Ex. C-4, legal notice Ex. C-5, postal receipts Exs. C-6 to 8, bill Ex. C-9, cover note Ex. C-10, RC copy Ex. C-11, DVD Ex. C- 12, photographs Exs. C-13 & 14. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Inderjit Singh Ex. R-1, policy terms and conditions Ex. R-2.
5. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by the Ops, evidence and documents on the record, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and it be dismissed.
6. In the grounds of appeal, the findings of the learned District Forum are not correct findings and they committed error and dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The complainant had given intimation to their Agent Mr. Resham Singh, CD and its Punjabi 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2012 Version, transcription was placed on the record. News published in the Punjab Kesari Newspaper also placed on the record but that evidence has been ignored by the learned District Forum and wrongly dismissed the complaint.
7. With regard to the intimation, the complainant has placed on the record transcription of the CD as Ex. C-12 with Sanjeev Garg and one Resham Singh in which the complainant has stated that the Company is demanding DDR in which he has replied that the DDR may be required for settlement of the claim. It is basically the inquiries made by the complainant from the Agent whether those documents were required or not. In case any accident had occurred immediately thereafter he was required to lodge the claim but the documents on the record placed by the complainant does not show that any claim was lodged by the complainant with the Ops giving the details of the accident and only then some directions with regard to repair or assessment of the loss can be given by the Ops.
8. Then version of the complainant with regard to the damage to the vehicle in the accident is also doubtful. In para No. 3 of the complaint, he has stated that his vehicle met with an accident on 12.5.2011. He himself placed on the record the news item Ex. C-4 in which he had levelled allegations against the official of the Company to harass him and further it has been stated that the said Glass had broken incidentally at the house and not in any accident. Further he has placed on the record the photograph Exs. C-13 & C-14 which shows the broken glass of the Car but there is no scratch on other parts of the car. In case there would have been some 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2012 accident then some damage to the other parts of the car should have been there, therefore, the story as propounded by the complainant that damage to the front glass was due to accident is not corroborated on the basis of these photographs or other evidence on the record, rather, the allegations of accident are vague, it has not been disclosed where the accident had happened. The document Ex. C-4 was relied upon by the complainant and we cannot go beyond the documents which speaks that the glass had broken in the house and not in accident. Therefore, in case the damage was not in the accident then it seems that he did not take reasonable care to protect his vehicle while standing at his house. He was unable to convince before this Commission how his claim is maintainable in case the damage is not in the accident. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. We affirm the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 6.1.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 8, 2015. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
6
FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2012