First Appeal No. 263 of 2013. Case: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri Sanjay Dharmaik. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:First Appeal No. 263 of 2013
Party Name:ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri Sanjay Dharmaik
Counsel:For Appellant: Jagdish Thakur, Advocate and For Respondents: Giri Raj Chauhan, Advocate
Judges:Surjit Singh, President and Prem Chauhan, Member
Issue:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Citation:2014 (II) ShimLC 853
Judgement Date:May 08, 2014
Court:Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Surjit Singh, President

  1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby respondent's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the appellants, has been partly allowed, and a direction given to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,15,779.98, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and also to pay Rs. 5,000/-, as compensation, and Rs. 2,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. Respondent owned a Santro car, which was insured with the appellants, in the sum of Rs. 3,33,000/-, for the period from 26.09.2006 to 25.09.2007. On the night intervening 21st and 22nd November, 2006, when the insurance policy was in force, vehicle met with an accident and according to the respondent-complainant, it was completely damaged and, thus, it was a case of total loss. Report of the accident was lodged with the police, on the basis of report of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the concerned Police Station. Intimation of the accident was given to the appellants also. A spot surveyor was deputed, who reported that the vehicle had rolled down the road and landed on a tree, about 300 yards down the edge of the road and was extensively damaged. No surveyor was deputed to assess the actual loss. Respondent's claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Respondent then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the appellants to pay the insurance money, which, according to him, was equivalent to the sum assured, as it was a case of total loss, with interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also sought.

  2. Complaint was contested by the appellants and it was pleaded that the vehicle was being driven by one Nishant Thakur, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, but later on, the name of driver was changed to Nishant Bhardwaj, with a view to avoiding repudiation of claim, on account of breach of condition of policy, with regard to the persons authorized to drive the vehicle.

  3. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,15,779.98, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and also to pay Rs. 5,000/-, as compensation, and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

  4. We have heard learned...

To continue reading

Request your trial