Back
Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.830 of 2019
Date of institution : 20.12.2019
Reserved on : 02.11.2021
Date of decision : 11.11.2021
Sukhraj Singh aged about 37 years son of Teja Singh resident of #
174, Phase-3, Model Town, Bathinda.
….Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda, through its
Divisional Manager.
2.
ICICI
Bank,
Near
Clock
Tower,
Bibi
Wala
Road,
Bathinda,through its Branch Manager.
…..Respondents/Opposite
Parties
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
order dated 14.11.2019 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now
‘Commission’), Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Presiding Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nitish Garg, Advocate
For respondent No.1
: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
For respondent No.2
: None
……………………………………………………………………….
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The
instant
appeal
has
been
filed
by
the
appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 14.11.2019
passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in
First Appeal No.830 of 2019
short, now “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by
complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under Section
12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) was
partly accepted and the following relief has been granted:
“33. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint
is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost against opposite
party No.1. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The
opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to complainant
Rs.6,06,213/- with interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 09.03.2016 till
payment. This order is directed to be complied with within a
period of forty five days from the date of receipt of its copy.”
2.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the
parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District
Commission.
3.
Brief facts for disposal of the appeal are that the
complainant got insured his vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-03-
AJ-5496, vide insurance certificate No. 401000/31/15/6300000608
w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2016 from OP No.1. The said vehicle was
hypothecated with OP No.2. OP No.1 issued only one page of
Insurance certificate for the IDV of Rs.27,55,000/- and it neither
issued the complete policy nor supplied its terms and conditions to
him. The insurance policy in question is Zero Depreciation insurance
policy and in this regard OP No.1 also charged extra payment of
Rs.19,032/- for NIL Depreciation. Moreover, it is Ist insurance policy
of the vehicle, as such, No Depreciation Clause is also applicable
under IMT. OP No.1 did not supply the copy of proposal form to the
First Appeal No.830 of 2019
complainant, which is also mandatory under Insurance Regulatory
and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests)
Regulations, 2002(4) (1). The said vehicle met with an accident on
25.09.2015 and at that time it was driven by Harjinder Singh Son of
Shangara Singh. The vehicle was badly damaged and shifted to
Honey Enterprises (Tata Authorized Service Centre) at Bathinda with
the help of crane after spending Rs.4000/-. He intimated OP No.1
about the said accident and it appointed Surveyor Mr. Gurcharan
Singh, who inspected the vehicle and took relevant papers. The
Surveyor asked the Service Centre to start the repair of the vehicle
under his supervision. The licence of the driver of the vehicle got
verified by OP No.1 from concerned DTO Ferozepur. After repairing
the vehicle, Service Centre prepared bill to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/-
and the complainant supplied the same to OP No.1through its
surveyor. But OP No.1 rejected t
