Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-
œThe complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i). to pay the sum of Rs.21,503.12/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report (R1-4/B); minus the benefit of no claim bonus given to the complainant.
(ii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant.
(iii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.
This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.?
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of Maruti Swift VDI Car, bearing Regn. No. CH-01-AM-4079, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, vide cover note No. CHD-D 895932, Annexure A-1, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, valid for the period from 23.02.2013 to 22.02.2014, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.10,939/-. It was stated that the said car met with an accident, on 27.09.2013, near Mohali Club, Phase-II, Mohali, Punjab, while the complainant was on his way to work. The vehicle was badly damaged. D.D.R. dated 28.09.2013, Annexure A-2, was lodged by the complainant, with the Police of Police Station, Phase-11, Mohali. It was further stated that the said accident occurred with Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, who was riding an Activa Scooter, bearing registration No. CH-03-1718. Ms. Jaspreet Kaur got hurt and she was bleeding profusely. The complainant took her to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,895/-, for the treatment of Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, in the said Hospital.
3. The complainant also informed Opposite Party No.3, about the said accident. Surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties, to inspect the vehicle, in the premises of M/s Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle and prepared the report. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.29,141/- for repairs, against the invoice dated 04.10.2013, Annexure A-3. Thereafter, the complainant handed over all the requisite documents to the Opposite Parties, for reimbursement of the claim amount. It was further stated that the complainant, also submitted the receipt, amounting to Rs.10,895/-, issued by the Fortis Hospital, Mohali. Thereafter, the complainant pursued the matter, with the Opposite Parties, vigorously. However, after 52 days, the Opposite Parties, informed the complainant, that since he had already obtained claim, from the previous Insurer-M/s ICICI Lombard, but did not disclose this fact, at the time of inception of the instant Policy, his claim was not payable, and the file relating to the same had been closed as œNo Claim?.
4. It was further stated that the complainant had paid the insurance premium, demanded by the agent of the Opposite Parties, who never informed about no claim bonus. It was further stated that despite a number of visits having been made to the Opposite Parties, with a request to reimburse the claim amount, including the amount of Rs.10,895/-, they did not pay any heed. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the claim amount of Rs.29,141/-, spent by him, towards repair of the said vehicle; Rs.10,895/- plus (+) Rs.5,000/-, spent by him, on the treatment of Ms.Jaspreet Kaur, in the hospital aforesaid; compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
5. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy, in question, in favour of the complainant. It was stated that, initially, the complainant had got the vehicle, in question, insured with M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., and before expiry of the aforesaid Policy, he had approached the Opposite Parties, for renewal of the same (Policy). Accordingly, the Policy was renewed, and while issuing Certificate of Insurance, he was asked, as to whether, he had lodged any claim, with the previous Insurance Company or not. It was further stated that, on the assurance of the complainant, that he had never lodged any claim, with the previous Insurer, no claim bonus to the tune of 20%, was granted to him, against the payment due, towards the renewal of the Policy, in question. It was further stated that when the vehicle met with an accident, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties, whereupon, a Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss, on account of the damage caused to the same (vehicle). It was further stated that the said Surveyor, assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.21,503.12Ps., after deducting salvage and excess Clause. It was further stated that while processing the claim of the complainant, the Opposite Parties received an e-mail dated 13.11.2013 Annexure R-1-4/C, from M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein, it was mentioned that the complainant had lodged an OD-claim with it, which had been paid to him. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant had concealed the material fact, regarding availing of the claim, from the previous Insurer. It was further stated that the contract of insurance being based on utmost good faith, and since the complainant had concealed the material fact, at the time of obtaining the Policy, his claim was legally and validly repudiated by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, for modification of the order impugned, by awarding the entire amount, claimed by him, in the Consumer Complaint.
9. We have heard the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The appellant, in person, submitted that since the accident took place, with Ms.Jaspreet Kaur, as a result whereof, she was injured, and he had to take her to the Hospital, and paid money for her treatment, to the tune of Rs.10,895/-, as also Rs.5,000/-, towards medicines and repair of the Activa Scooter, which she was riding, the Opposite Parties, were wrong, in declining payment of the said amount. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, thus, needs modification, to this extent.
11. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the complainant took a Private Car Package Policy- Zone B, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, valid for the period from 23.02.2013 to 22.02.2014, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.10,939/-. Undisputedly, the vehicle met with an accident. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle, and assessed loss, to the tune of Rs.21,503.12 Ps., after deducting the salvage and excess Clause. It is settled principle of law, that the report of Surveyor, no doubt, is neither binding on the Consumer Foras, nor on the parties, yet, it being a material document, cannot be lightly ignored. The Surveyor took into consideration, each and every part of the vehicle, which was damaged, and, thereafter, applied depreciation, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, Ultimately, he estimated the loss, referred to above. No evidence was produced by the complainant, to successfully rebut the report of the Surveyor. It was proved that the complainant obtained claim, from the previous Insurer, but had not disclosed about the same, at the time of issuance of the Insurance Policy, in question, and, as such, obtained no claim bonus under the same (instant Policy). The District Forum was right, in holding that the claim of the complainant could not be legally and validly repudiated in toto, on account of the aforesaid reason. The District Forum, was also right, in holding that the complainant was entitled to the amount of loss of Rs.21,503.12Ps., assessed by the Surveyor, minus the amount of no claim bonus received by him, from the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was also right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, by illegally and arbitrarily, repudiating the claim of the complainant, in toto.
12. Under this Policy, the complainant could only claim the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor, on account of damage caused to the vehicle, in the accident. The District Forum, could not go beyond the terms and conditions of the Policy Annexure R1-4/A-Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule, Private Car Package Policy-Zone B. Keeping in view the nature of coverage, under the Policy, the Opposite Parties were not liable to reimburse the complainant, in respect of the amount spent by him, for the treatment of Ms.Jaspreet Kaur, for the medicines purchased for her, and for the repair of her activa scooter. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
13. No other point, was urged, by the appellant, in person.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.