State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
I C I C I Lumbard General Insurance vs Hari Om Gupta on 22 March, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2007/419 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. I C I C I Lumbard General Insurance a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Hari Om Gupta a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 22 Mar 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 419 of 2007 1- ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its Principal Officer. 2- ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Satya Business Park, 43/15 K, Naval Kishore Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow through its Area Head. 3- ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, having its local Branch office at Hotel Mansarovar Building, Ayub Khan Chauraha, P.S. Kotwali Bareilly through its Manager. ..Appellants. Versus Hari Ome Gupta aged about 38 years, S/o Shri R.D. Gupta, R/o 235/307, Gher Zafar Khan, Old City, P.S. Baradari, Bareilly. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member. Shri Brijendra Chaudhary for the appellants. Shri A.K. Mishra for the respondent. Date 7.4.2017 JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.2.2006, passed by the Ld. DCDRF-II, Bareilly in complaint case No.209 of 2005, the appellant ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited and 2 others have preferred the instant appeal.
(2)Facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had insured his vehicle Indica Car with the appellants/OPs for a sum of Rs.2,34,150.00 and during the validity of the insurance policy, the car met with an accident. The accident was reported to the Police Station as well as to the appellants. The Surveyor appointed, submitted his report after investigation and thereafter, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Hence, a complaint was filed in the District Forum-II, Bareilly where despite notices issued to the appellants/OPs none appeared. Hence the matter was proceeded exparte by the ld. Forum on 8.2.2006 passing the impugned order as under:-
"परिवाद एकपक्षीय स्वीकार किये जाकर अंशत: आज्ञप्त किया जाता है विपक्षी बीमा कम्पनी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि बीमा राशि 200000/-रू0 (दो लाख) का भुगतान आज से एक माह में परिवादी को कर दे जिस पर परिवाद की तिथि से भुगतान की तिथि तक 06 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज भी देय होगा। परिवादी विपक्षी से 100000/-रू0 (एक लाख) क्षतिपूर्ति व 5000/-रू0 (पांच हजार रूपये) वाद व्यय के संदर्भ में भी वसूल करने का अधिकारी होगा।'' Feeling aggrieved with this judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants/OPs.
The main grounds of the appeal are that the alleged accident had never occurred and hence, the claim was repudiated by the appellants/OPs after submission of the report of the Surveyor and hence they did not commit any deficiency in service but the ld. District Forum had passed the order on surmises and conjectures and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed. The (3) respondent has filed objection to this appeal mainly on the ground that the appeal was filed with much delay and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this score itself. Besides, the Surveyor's report is based on conjecture and surmises even though he has admitted the fact that one vehicle was subjected to accident. The fact is that the ld. Forum has passed the correct order and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
In this case, it is not disputed that the respondent/ complainant's vehicle was insured with the appellants. The disputed point according to the appellants is that the alleged accident never occurred and hence as per the report of the Surveyor the claim was repudiated and hence they did not commit any deficiency in service whereas according to the complainant the accident did occur and hence, the appellants/OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. So now it is to be seen as to whether the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident whereby it was damaged or not and if so whether the appellants/ OPs committed deficiency in service or not ?
In this case, it is also to be seen whether the appeal has been filed with delay or not and its consequences. The ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that this appeal has been filed with much delay and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this score itself.
In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellants that no notice was received by the appellants in (4) the case at the Forum below and the matter was proceeded exparte and therefore, the impugned order could not be known to the appellants. An application for condonation supported with affidavit has been filed by the appellants/ OPs. In the affidavit it is submitted that the ld. Forum had passed exparte order without notice to the appellants/OPs and it is only when the matter was brought to the appellants/OPs then they applied for copy of the judgment which was received on 18.12.2006 and thereafter, the documents were procured and the appeal was filed on 26.2.2007 i.e. with a delay of about 39 days. Objections to this appeal have been filed by the respondent/complainant but considering the averments made in the affidavit filed for the side of the appellants and the fact that the impugned order was passed exparte and hence, there was no notice of the impugned order passed against the appellants. Therefore, there is justification for condoning the delay and hence, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.
Now we come to the main issue as to whether the vehicle in question met with an accident or not and whether the appellants/OPs have committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim or not ?
In this regard, we find that there is no dispute that an information regarding the accident was not only given to the Police Station concerned by the respondent/ complainant but also to the appellants/OPs. The Surveyor appointed has cast doubts on the alleged accident on the ground that when the vehicle fell down into a deep ditch (5) the driver came out with minor injuries and therefore, the accident was a suspicious one but the fact remains that crane was called to take the vehicle out of the ditch and therefore, in the absence of any evidence of manipulative or doctored incident, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the vehicle met with an accident and simply because the driver came out with minor injuries, does not make out accident to be a fake one. So, obviously the Surveyor's report does not appear to be correct one and therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the appellants on the ground of the Surveyor's report that the accident never occurred is of no avail. There was the report lodged in the Police Station and the vehicle was found lying in deep ditch is an amply proof of the vehicle getting damaged because of the accident. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the ld. Forum below for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs is quite reasonable as the appellants were found to have committed deficiency in service. However, there does not appear to be any rationale for awarding compensation to the complainant as the interest @ 6% was already allowed on the amount of Rs.2 lacs therefore, we are of the opinion that the award of compensation was totally unwarranted and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be amended and the appeal allowed partly accordingly.
ORDER The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is amended to the extent that the appellant is not to make payment of Rs.1 lac as compensation. However, rest of the order shall remain as it is.(6)
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Govardhan Yadav) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Vijai Varma] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Gobardhan Yadav] MEMBER