##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.579 of 2023

Date of Institution : 04.08.2023

Reserved on : 17.04.2026

Date of Decision : 18.05.2026

Sunil Dutt aged about 53 years S/o Sh. Amarjit Singh, R/o Patti

Bhaudhipur, VPO Virk, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

…..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Corporation Limited,

registered office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sawarkar

Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple Prabhadevi, Mumbai-

400025. email ID customercaresupports@icicilombard.com

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Corporation Limited, Second

Floor, Nirmal Complex (Sawagat Palace) Plot No.EH-198, GT

Road, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001. Email ID

customercaresupports@icicilombard.com

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

First Appeal under Section 41 of

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting

aside the order dated 19.06.2023 passed

by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Jalandhar in

Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2022.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Appellant : Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents : Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate

2

First Appeal No.579 of 2023

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported

in the Digest? Yes/No

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellant/Complainant Sunil Dutt has filed the

present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,

2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated

19.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Jalandhar (in short the “District Commission”) in

Consumer Complaint No.45 of 2022, whereby the Complaint filed by

the Complainant had been dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are

necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the

Complainant being aggrieved by the action/inaction of the OPs had

filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following

prayer :-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed the opposite

party may kindly be directed to pay the amount of

Rs.17,00,000/- as total damage of the above said

vehicle, Rs.6,500/- charges by Ganpati Golden

Transport Company to take vehicle from the spot of

Sirhind and Rs.4,000/- charged by the crane and

Rs.15,000/- charged by the Pioneer Tata Sirhind for

3

First Appeal No.579 of 2023

parking charges and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation

for the mental tension, harassment and agony

suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as

litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.”

3. Upon issuing notices in the said Complaint to the OPs,

they had appeared through Counsel and filed reply/written versions.

Certain preliminary objections were raised and other averments made

in the Complaint were controverted.

4. By considering the averments made in the Complaint and

reply thereof as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for

the parties and the documents available on record, the District

Commission had dismissed the Complaint. The relevant part of the

order as mentioned in para 9 of the order dated 19.06.2023 is

reproduced as under :-

“9. From all the documents produced on record by

both the parties, it is proved that there is a

contradictory statement in the claim form as well as I

the DDR and the statement produced on record by

the complainant. The driving license of the driver

Amandeep Chamba has not been proved on record.

From the different statement of the complainant, it is

proved that the complainant is not aware of the fact

as to how the accident took place. The driver of the

complainant i.e. Amandeep Chamba has not gone to

4

First Appeal No.579 of 2023

the police station nor has given the statement before

the Surveyor to prove the actual incident, therefore

the OP has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground

of misrepresentation. Even the claim form has be