H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No. : 275/2024 Date of Presentation : 26.11.2024 Order Reserved on : 16.06.2025 Date of Order : 26.06.2025 ………….

st, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 1 Sahib Complex, College Road, Mandi, H.P. 175001, through its Manager (Legal), ICICI Lombard General Insurance th Company Limited, 7 Floor Mercantile House, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001 ……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus Sh. Amjad Ali S/o Sh.Mansha Ali, R/o Village Dinak P.O.

Kanaid, Tehsil Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

……Respondent/Complainant.

________

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member.

Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant :Mr.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent :Mr.Nishant Khidtta Advocate &

Mr.Anirudh Kapoor, Advocate.

___

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

08.07.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi in Consumer Complaint No.55/2022 titled Shri Amjad Ali Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages to the complainant besides litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of L&T Komastu Excavator bearing No. #NL18350, which was insured with the opposite party/insurance company w.e.f. 16.04.2021 to 15.04.2022 for a sum of Rs.44,50,000/-. The complainant used to give the aforesaid excavator on rent to earn his livelihood. The said excavator was operated by Operator-cum-driver Narender Kumar. On 04.12.2021, when the aforesaid excavator alongwith compressor was hired by one Sh.Aftab, Contractor for the construction of Malana connecting road, then at 10:05 AM, huge rocks/boulders fell on the excavator, as a result of which heavy damaged was caused to the same. The matter was reported to the police as well as insurance company. On receiving information of accident, the insurance company appointed a surveyor & loss assessor, who inspected the spot and assessed loss to the tune of Rs.8,53,587/-. The excavator had crushed under the heavy boulders and it was not possible to remove the said machinery from the spot and as such it remained buried. On 29.03.2022, the excavator further slipped down in Parwati River, from where, it could not be retrieved. The opposite party has wrongly assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,53,587/- by calculating the depreciation to the extent of 75%, whereas, the depreciation value should have been below 35%. The complainant has suffered 100% loss, as the excavator has fallen into the river and is not retrievable. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.

3. The opposite party/insurance company filed reply to the complaint and stated that after receiving the information regarding the accident, the opposite party/ insurance company appointed an independent surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.8,53,857/- on repair basis, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy in question. At the time of the accident, the market value of the excavator was Rs.57,56,955/-, whereas, the insurance coverage was taken for Rs.44,50,000/-. Therefore, the complainant had undervalued the excavator for the purpose of insurance. The complainant has not taken any safety measure to protect the said excavator due to which it fell into the river. So the present complaint has been filed just to get the exaggerated compensation from the insurance company. A prayer for dis