JUDGMENT

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement pronounced on contest in CC/13/2019 against the OP of the said CC/13/2019 on 29.06.2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia, West Bengal, the OP of the said CC ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented through its legal Manager/Authorized Signatories has preferred the instant Appeal against the complaint of the said complainant Tarapada Rajak under Sec. 15 of the C.P. Act of 1986.

2. By filing the instant Appeal, the Appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter will be referred as the Appellant of the instant Appeal in this judgement) has contended that CC/13/2019 was not mentionable and as a ground of Appeal, agitated that the Ld. Concerned Commission below could not appreciate the policy condition involved in CC/13/2019. The Appellant has also pressed as another ground of Appeal that the driving license of the driver of the vehicle of the complainant of CC/13/2019 was not a valid driving license for driving passenger vehicle as he was not holder of ‘passenger of vehicle batch’ and consequently his Driving License for driving was not valid and effective driving license. Appellant side contended further that the Ld. Court below had failed to appreciate the terms of the Insurance Policy and determined the extent of liability of the insurer and had not appreciated the report of the surveyor which is a must for the proper adjudication of the case.

3. By preferring the instant Appeal, the Appellant contended that the “Bill” of the repairing of the vehicle of the complainant was not filed and the survey report that assessed the repairing cost of the vehicle as Rs.5,16,653 was not appreciated by the Ld. Concerned DCDRC below and without considering the ‘Insured Declared Value’ of the vehicle under the policy which was Rs.4,83,976/-, the Ld. Concerned Commission erroneously awarded repairing cost of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.7,76,986/-, without deducting salvage value through there was existence of increase of cost of repairing of the vehicle beyond the IDV of the said vehicle.

4. It is also pressed by the Appellant that the compensation was awarded without taking into consideration the guidelines of IRDA.

5. By filing the instant Appeal, assailing the impugned judgement of CC/13/2019 dated 29.06.2022, the OP of said CC/13/2019 has preferred the instant Appeal A/5/2022 on 24.08.2022 before this Commission, praying for setting aside the impugned judgement of CC/13/2019 dated 29.06.2022 on the grounds as reflected above.

6. The factual matrix of CC/13/2019 is that Tarapada Rajak i.e. the complainant of CC/13/2019 is the owner of the vehicle being registration No. WB 55 A 6626 which is an ‘OMNIBUS’ with unladen weight of 1170 kgs and laden weight of 1771 kgs and he being an unemployed person, used to earn his livelihood by using the said vehicle of individual ownership. It is the specific case of the complainant/OP Tarapada Rajak that the said vehicle was insured with the OP of CC/13/2019 i.e. with the Appellant covering a span of time from 08.11.2017 to 20.11.2018 for own damage of the vehicle and its ‘insurance policy No. was 3004/TM/100083286/00/000 and its was issued on 03.11.2017.

7. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 07.09.2018, when the vehicle of the complainant/OP of CC/13/2019 and A/5/2022 respectively, having insurance converge from the Appellant, was proceeding some passengers from Setialpur to Bagmundi, then near the village Huripaldih at around 10.45 am/ 11 am of 07.09.2018, a passenger bus being No. WB 55 3372 coming from the opposite direction of the complainant/OP’s said vehicle i.e. WB 55 A 6626 and made head on collision violently and caused severe damages to the said “OMNIBUS” of the complainant/OP Tarapada Rajak. The driver of the said vehicle of Tarapada Rajak named Samir Kumar Mahato passed away besides some other passengers of both those collided vehicles and some of those passengers were injured. It is th