STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/94/2017 PRAVIN S/O MATHURALAL AGRWAL PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. PLOT NO. 8/9, KHADGAON ROAD, WADI, NAGPUR-440

023,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 5TH FLOOR, LANDMARK BUILDING, RADASPETH, WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR-440 012,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

ADV.ANURADHA DESHPANDE, FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ADV.ARCHANA NARAD DATED: 11/09/2025

ORDER

PER MS.SHAILA D.WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, Pravin Mathuralal Agrawal, being aggrieved by the orderpassed on 22/09/2016 in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/12/610 (for short as “impugned order”) by the learnedAdditional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur(for short as “learned District Forum”), vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The parties of the appealare hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

3. The facts that emerge from the present case are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing RTO registration No.MH-40-N-1830 which was duly insured with the opposite party for a sum assured of Rs.10,38,012/- for the policy period from 25/02/2011 to 24/02/2012. The complainant has contended that the opposite party issued only a cover note at the time of insurance without providing the complete terms and conditions of the policy and further failed to obtain any proposal form or declaration form regarding No Claim Bonus (NCB). During the period of the insurance, in January 2012, the said truck met with an accident resulting in severe damage which was promptly reported both to the police authorities and to the opposite party. Upon such intimation, a surveyor was appointed who initially inspected the damaged vehicle, permitted its repair and thereafter carried out a final inspection. So, the complainant lodged an insurance claim of Rs.5,98,015/-. However, during the process, as the truck was found beyond repair, the complainant was required to furnish his written consent on stamp paper agreeing to accept a reduced amount of Rs.3,10,000/- on a cashless basis which he complied with in good faith. Despite this, the opposite party subsequently repudiated the claim altogether on the ground that the premium paid was insufficient and that a false declaration had been made regarding NCB. The complainant has denied these allegations and asserted that such repudiation amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. Therefore, the complainant has in complaint prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest, compensation and costs in the interest of justice.

4. The Opposite Party resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and contended that though they admitted the ownership of the truck as well as its insurance with them, the complainant’s version was false and misleading. It has denied by opposite party that the complainant was not provided with the terms and conditions of the policy, or that the accident as alleged had ever taken place, or that any instructions were given to the police in this regard. It has also denied that with the permission of the appointed surveyor, the truck was sent for repairs along with another vehicle, or that the complainant had ever submitted a claim of Rs.5,98,015/-. The Opposite Party submitted that the surveyor had duly inspected the vehicle, the final survey report was accepted, and the claim of the complainant was rejected strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, as the complainant had failed to submit all necessary documents. It has further contended that the complainant had availed the benefit of No