BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 149/2008
Date of presentation: 04.09.2008
Date of decision: 04.12.2009
Shri Arjun Singh S/O Shri Daljeet Singh,
Residentof Village Tipra, P.O. Surajpur,
Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Chairman/Managing Director,
Office of ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company,
Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051.
2. ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited
Through its Manager/Authorized person, Branch Office
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
Near Prashar Complex, Rajgarh Road, Solan,
Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Atul Pandit, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Raman Gupta, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he, is, registered owner of a Jeep bearing registration No.HP-15-6479, which came to be insured by him, with the OP-Company, vide cover note No.300/51438403/00/000, for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. It is further averred that, on, 25.09.2007, when the aforesaid vehicle was being used by the complainant for his own family purpose, it met with an accident, near Jhar-Majri, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. hence, suffered extensive loss. As usual, the matter, is stated to have been brought to the notice of the OP-Company, who instead of settling the claim, repudiated it, vide letter, dated 15.02.2008. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is contended that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, hence, it being infraction of terms of insurance contract executed interse the parties, the claim, is, contended to have been rightly repudiated. However, it is contended that surveyor and loss assessor Shri Naveen Manjul, has assessed the loss to the vehicle, at, Rs.43,285/-, which was payable to the insured subject to terms and conditions of the insurance contract. Hence, it is, denied that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP-Company, in repudiating his claim vide letter dated 15.02.2008. The OP-Company, is, exculpating their liability on the strength that, at the time when the vehicle met with an accident, it was being used for commercial purpose, hence, it comprising infraction of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, executed interse the parties, the OP-Company, was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant.
6. The OP-Company, in support of the above, is, seeking support from Annexure-1, which is a copy of Investigation report prepared by Shri A.P. Singh, Investigator, detailing the fact, that, at, the time of his visit, to the residence of the insured, he, had made a statement that he has engaged one Angand Singh, as a driver on monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-, and vehicle, is, being used on hire. The complainant had, also, deposed before the Investigator that, on, 07.08.2008, the driver was going from Barotiwala to baddi, when the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident near Bhar Kalam. The statement of the complainant so recorded by the Investigator, bears Annexure R-2. The Investigator has also sworn an affidavit corroborating the contents of the report. However, though, solemnity, is, enjoyed by Annexure R-2, though, it may be stripped of its value, when the complainant denies his having made such statement, the effect, of, which denial has not been effaced by placing on record, his, statements purportedly recorded by the Investigator. Nonetheless, the apposite evidence germane, to, the date on which the accident occurred, is, amiss, inasmuch, as, the OP, were , obliged to prove, that, on the relevant date, the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms of the policy, its, want also renders the purported statement of, its, owner, if any, that, it was used for commercial purpose without, an, advertence in it, that, on that day, also, it was plied for hire, it to be, of, no probative value, in, determining the manner, of, its use, on the relevant day, as alleged by the OP. Hence, for lack of germane evidence manifested, in, the adduction of a bill issued, to, the passenger purportedly carried, for, hire and reward, the, carrying of such, a, passenger, if any, cannot construed, to, be for hire and reward. For lack of above evidence, the, OP, has failed to discharge its onus. Also, for, reason aforesaid, it, cannot derive any sustenance from Annexure R-2.
7. Compensation to be paid to the complainant, after its determining its quantum, on the bills of repair as supplied to the OP. In case not supplied, the complainant shall supply them to the OP within three weeks and, then, the OP, shall thereafter, on receipt of the bills, from the complainant, within three weeks determine the quantum of complainant, payable by the OP to the complainant, which amount shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 04.09.2008, till actual payment is made. In addition to this, the OP, shall also pay, litigation cost to the complainant, which is, quantified at Rs.1500/-. In the above terms the complaint stands disposed of.
8. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 18th day of September, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.