Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)
Consumer Complaint No. 43/08
Date of presentation: 27.2.2008
Date of decision: 30.6.2009
Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Madan Gopal resident of VPO Banuri, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP) 176061
Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Home Finance Ltd. Chaman Commercial Complex, Mandi, HP 175001
2 ICICI Lombard, Motor Insurance Zenith House, Keshavrao Khade Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034
3. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai 400051
Opposite parties
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
PRESIDENT: R.K.MITTAL
MEMBERS: PABNA SHARMA & PARDEEP DOGRA
For the complainant: Sh. Gaurav Pathania, Advocate
For the O.P.: Sh. Neeraj Chandel, Adv. for opposite parties.
R.K.MITTAL, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
ORDER/
It is alleged that the opposite party No.1 is a branch at Mandi of opposite party No.3 which deals in general and Motor Insurances and opposite party No.2 is the Policy Issuing Office. It is alleged that the complainant was un-employed. He had got financed one Cargo King Pick-Up vehicle (hereinafter referred to as vehicle) bearing registration HP-37-A-8213 on 14.12.2006 from SBI (ADB), branch at Palampur, and purchased it from Sagar Motors, Gaggal (Ichhi), Tehsil Kangra and got it insured form the opposite parties vide Policy No.3003/50874772/00/000 dated 20.12.2006 w.e.f. 12.12.2006 upto 11.12.2007 at Sagar Automobiles Gaggal (Ichhi) through their agent. It is alleged that on 29.9.2007, round about 2.30 am., when the complainant was on en-route from Kullu to Hoshiarpur, this vehicle had met with an accident near Handowal, District Hoshiarpur and a Police report was lodged about this accident, in P.S. Hoshiarpur. The intimation about the accident was also given to the opposite parties. The vehicle was got inspected by the opposite parties from their Surveyor Mr. Salinder on 11.10.2007. It is alleged that the complainant had suffered a loss/damage to the tune of Rs.3,54,661/- of his vehicle due to this accident. The vehicle is still lying in the workshop at Gaggal. The complainant had approached the opposite parties to settle his claim. One Mr. Rajiv Gautam, Surveyor of the opposite parties had also inspected the damaged vehicle and had assured him to settle the claim, but the opposite parties had ultimately refused to settle his claim on 4.12.2007. It is also alleged that due to damage/loss of the vehicle, the complainant was unable to pay the dues of the loan amount of SBI. A notice dated 26.12.2007 was also sent to the opposite party No.1, but it had refused to take this notice. Hence, the petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs.3,54,661/- as estimated costs of the repair. He has also claimed loss in his income to the tune of Rs.10000- per month since 29.9.2007 on-words. He has also claimed compensation for harassment and inconvenience to the tune of Rs.10000/- due to non-settlement of his claim and has also prayed for the relief of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.
2. The opposite parties have contested this complaint by filing their reply on 9.7.2008, in which they have contended that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid driving licence and had violated the terms of the Insurance Policy They have claimed that the complainant does not have any locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is estopped to file this complaint, on account of his act, conduct and acquiescence and the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands, and has suppressed the material- facts. They have also contended that this complaint is not maintainable, at all. Although, they have admitted the occurrence of the accident at place- Handowal on 29.9.2007 round about 2.30 a.m, but they have contended that the said vehicle was being driven by one Mr. Sunny son of Bihari Lal, who was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. A news was also published about this fact in the local Punjabi newspaper (Ajit). As per information, collected in the early morning after this accident, it was revealed that this vehicle bearing HP-37-A-8273 was coming from Chandigarh and was going towards Una, near Chabewal, a Trailor had struck with it and three persons, driver Sunny, Om Parkash and one Commission Agent Jagdish Lal, sitting in this vehicle had received serious injuries. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, but Sh. Jagdish Lal was referred to DMC, Ludhiana. The opposite parties have contended that only Rapat Roznamcha (DDR No.25) was written in the Police Station, Hoshiarpur on 10.10.2007, about this accident but no F.I.R. was lodged. They have contended that one Surveyor Sh. Manmohan Sharma had conducted the survey of the vehicle on 31.10.2007 at “Gaggal” and found that there was a loss/damage to the tune of Rs.2,16,649/- to the vehicle. During inquiry, the Surveyor also came to know that the complainant was not driving the vehicle, but it was one Mr. Sunny, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Since, the complainant was not sitting/driving the vehicle at the time of accident, that is, why he had received no injury at- all, on his body. They have also contended that one Surveyor Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Notra had visited the spot of accident for survey on 11.7.2007, and took the photographs of the vehicle, which was lying on the spot. So, the question of lying the vehicle in the workshop at Gaggal since 29.9.2007, does not arise at all. They have contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 12.12.2007, as the vehicle was driving by a person namely Mr. Sunny, without having a valid driving licence. They have contended that since there is no deficiency in their services, so they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel Sh. Gaurav Pathania, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sh. Neeraj Chandel Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties and we have also carefully gone through the case file, and evidence on record.
4. As per contentions of the complainant, if he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, and he did not receive any injury to his person, at all, then why he did not lodge the report of this accident in the Police Station of the area. The delay in lodging the report with the Police Station about this accident causes a serious doubt on the contentions of the complainant, which are fully falsified on the file by the other cogent, convincing strong and reliable evidence, lead by the opposite parties. The Annexure OP1 is the report dated 7.12.2007 of Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Surveyor and Ex.OPW2 is the affidavit of Sh. Manmohan Sharma, vide which the loss/damage to the vehicle has been assessed at Rs.2,16,449/-, but the fact remains that we have to determine, who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Annexure OP7 is the cutting of newspaper namely “Ajit”, in which it is mentioned that the vehicle bearing registration NO.HP-37-A-8213 met with an accident, which was being driven by Mr. Sunny son of Sh. Bihari Lal, resident of Palampur, District Kangra (HP) and all the three occupants of the vehicle had got serious injuries. We surprise that if the complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, how the local reporter of the newspaper got the information and address of the driver of the vehicle. He must have collected this information from the spot and the persons surrounding the accidental site,who must be eye witness of this accident. There does not seems to be any occasion for the reporter to give any wrong news, about the name and address of the driver and about the injuries of the occupants of the damaged vehicle when said reporter is stated to have no enmity with complainant. . The complainant, in his complaint, has no where contended that he received minor injuries, but during his cross-examination before this Forum, he has deposed that he had received minor injuries, but no medical aid/treatment was taken by him. From the perusal of photographs of the damaged vehicle, Annexure OP-5 and OP-6, it reveals that it was a serious type of accident. It is very strange that complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar did not receive any injury in such type of serious accident. Had he been actually driving the vehicle, he would certainly have received serious injuries on his person.
5. Annexure OP2 is the detailed investigation report, made by Sh. A.P.Singh, GIC Claim Investigator, which falsifies the claim of the complainant. No word has been used by the complainant to refute the report of the Claim Investigator. Annexure OP-3 is the report dated 11.10.2007 made by Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Notra, Surveyor, which also doubts on the claims of the complainant. The Claim Investigator has clearly mentioned in his report that the vehicle was driven by Mr. Sunny and not by the complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar, at the time of accident. Although, the names of three occupants were duly mentioned in the newspaper and in the investigation report, but the complainant has not bothered to lead any evidence/affidavit of any of these three alleged occupants of the vehicle, at the time of accident.
6. The delay of 10 days, in lodging the report of the said accident with the Police Authorities, goes to show that it is an afterthought action, with an idea to get the claim only. As per Annexure C-1, the accidental vehicle is a Light Goods Vehicle. Annexure C-2 I the photo copy of driving licence of Sh. Pawan Kumar and Annexure C-3 is the photo copy of Insurance Policy, but the fact remains that the complainant has not produced any evidence of the owner/driver of the Tralla (other vehicle involved in this accident) with which his vehicle is stated to have been struck on the morning of 29.9.2007.
7. No doubt, the complainant Pawan Kumar is having a valid driving licence to drive Light Transport Vehicle, but from the evidence on the file, it is highly doubtful that he was driving the vehicle. Since there is cogent and reliable evidence on the file that it was Mr. Sunny son of Sh. Bihari Lal, resident of Palampur, District Kangra (HP) was driving the vehicle, at the time of accident, and there is no proof on the file that he was having a valid driving licence, so, the claim of the complainant was rightly- repudiated by the opposite parties. Hence, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief/compensation from the opposite party.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to both the parties by post, free of costs, and the file after it’s due completion be consigned to the record-room.
Announced R.K.Mittal
Date: 30.6.2009 President
Pabna Sharma
Member
Pardeep Dogra
Member
Pkw
Tags: ICICI Home Finance