Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/154

Sandeep Pareeka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sood Adv.

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.154 of 12.03.2015

Date of Decision            :  19.07.2017

Sandeep Pareekh son of Sh.R.M.Pareekh, resident cum office MIG-1147, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Makret, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized signatory.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER          

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh.Amit Sood, Advocate

For OPs                           :         Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate 

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant, the owner of Truck of Ashok Ley-Land 1612-H make bearing registration No.RJ-14-GB-8574 of model 2008, got the same insured with Ops vide policy No.OG-13-1203-1803-00000030, having cover note No.MC1002757046 with validity period from 1.5.2012 to 30.4.2013. The said vehicle met with an accident on 31.8.2012 and same sustained total damage. Intimation of accident was immediately given to Ops and even claim was lodged. Ops got the claim documents signed from the complainant. Concerned officials of Ops even checked the vehicle of the complainant. Photographs of the vehicle even were clicked and the complainant was asked to make payment. Thereafter, complainant had been approaching Ops time and again with prayer for releasing of entire amount of Rs.6,75,000/-, but to no effect. Complainant claims to have suffered mental tension and agony and as such, by pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, this complaint filed with request to direct Ops to release the claim amount of Rs.6,75,000/- with interest @12% per annum. Compensation for mental pain and sufferance of Rs.3 lac more claimed.

2.                           In joint written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is legally not maintainable, being barred by limitation and that there is not deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with Ops for period from 1.5.2012 to 30.4.2013. It is also admitted that after receipt of the claim intimation, Sh.Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Auto Mobile Engineer was deputed to conduct the spot survey. That surveyor contacted many times the complainant for calling upon him to supply the complete documents, but complainant supplied some of the documents alone. Lastly, said surveyor submitted his report dated 3.9.2012 on the basis of supplied documents. Ops thereafter sent letters dated 4.9.2012, 11.10.2012, 21.12.2012 and 7.3.2013 for calling upon the complainant to supply the documents pertaining to police final investigation report with charge sheet and document relating to driver confirmation. Those documents were not submitted and as such, Ops finally closed the claim vide letter dated 16.3.2013. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, prayer made for dismissal of complaint.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Navjeet Singh, Senior Legal Executive of OPs along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R38 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                           On application for additional evidence being filed, documents Ex.R39 to Ex.R41 submitted by counsel for Ops and then closed the evidence.

6.                 No rebuttal to this additional evidence was adduced.

7.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                 Undisputedly, the truck in question was insured with Ops through cover note, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C2. It is also admitted case of the parties that after receipt  of claim from complainant by Ops, surveyor     was deputed, who after inspecting the spot and issue of reminders to complainant, for calling upon him to produce documents, submitted report. Motor insurance claim form in this respect is produced on record as Ex.R36 and Ex.R37 by Ops.

9.                 After going through contents of Ex.R36 and Ex.R37, it is made out that informant disclosed the name of driver as Lal Bahadur Yadav and that is why, investigation carried out by Ops regarding validity of the driving licnese of Lal Bahadur Yadav. However, in fact copy of FIR Ex.R41 shows as if Mr.Ranjit Kumar was the driver of vehicle at the time of accident. Realizing this position, Ops by way of additional evidence sought report of verification regarding driving licence of said Ranjit Kumar s/o Sh.Bhola Paswan. Copy of driving license of said Ranjit Kumar produced on record as Ex.R40. Perusal of same reveals as if Ranjit Kumar was allowed to drive HMV w.e.f.14.8.2012. However, the vehicle in question is Heavy Goods Vehicle(Truck) and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that in fact the claim liable to be repudiated. Admittedly, the repudiation letter has not been issued till date. Complainant disclosed the name of driver as Lal Bahadur Yadav and primary survey report Ex.R5 by the surveyor prepared by mentioning as if name of driver is Lal Bahadur Yadav. Even spot survey report Ex.R6 of surveyor makes mention of name of same driver and as such, it is obvious that earlier survey report or the investigation report obtained by treating as if Lal Bahadur Yadav was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. Same facts even incorporated in Ex.R12 and Ex.R13. Copy of driving license of Lal Bahadur Yadav is produced on record as Ex.R15. That investigation carried by the surveyor as such cannot be termed as proper because the same conducted by taking as if Lal Bahadur Yadav was the driver of the insured vehicle, which in fact is not the position as per copy of FIR Ex.R41. So, for due conduct of investigation by Ops and for affording due opportunity of hearing to the complainant, ends of justice warrants that Ops should reconsider the claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Justice to both parties will be done only in case both of them provided chance for confronting each other qua position as to whether the driver was Ranjit Kumar or was Lal Bahadur Yadav. As report of driving license of Ranjit Kumar obtained during pendency of this complaint and as such also due opportunity of hearing should be given to complainant, so that he can show as to who was the          actual driver and as to whether the said actual driver was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident or not. Complainant has also placed on record copy of driving license of Ranjit Kumar as Ex.C1 for showing as if he was allowed to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle w.e.f.14.8.2012. Whether or not heavy motor vehicle includes transport vehicle like Truck, that is a matter which needs to be determined. Admittedly, the claim has not been repudiated till date by considering the report of validity of driving license of Ranjit Kumar and as such, due consideration for repudiation of claim has not taken place till date. Ex.C3 to Ex.C9, Ex.C11 and Ex.C12 are the documents of certificate of fitness or of authorization to drive heavy goods vehicle etc and dispute with regard to validity thereof does not exist and nor raised.

10.               Through letter Ex.C10 of date 3.4.2013, complainant informed Ops as if charge sheet not filed till date by the police, but copy of same will be supplied as and when the same filed. Ex.C13 and Ex.C14 are the same documents as is Ex.R14.

11.               Perusal of Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 each reveals as if name of driver was not known to the representative of insurance company, who conducted this correspondence. It is contended by counsel for Ops that said representative pertains to different section of insurance company and that is why, in view of non-providing of information to him regarding the name of driver, words NA or Zero are recorded in these emails. Even if that be the position, despite that reports of surveyor Ex.R5 and Ex.R6 etc., takes into consideration, the name of driver as Lal Bahadur Yadav, despite the fact that Ranjit Kumar is the driver as per FIR Ex.R41 and as such, investigation regarding validity of driving license virtually not got conducted by Ops. As such, fitness of thing requires that matter should be reinvestigated or considered a fresh by Ops after determining as to who in fact was      the driver actually at the time of accident in question. Ex.R7 to Ex.R9 are the documents of termination of hire purchase agreement or certificate of registration only, but Ex.R11 is the survey fee bill receipt, but Ex.R16 is the authorization certificate of N.P.(Goods) vehicle/heavy goods vehicle, whereas Ex.R17 is the certificate of fitness and Ex.R18 is cash receipt issued by the Registration Authority, but Ex.R19 is bill issued by Dhirendra Kumar Singh, automobile engineer. They need to be reconsidered by Ops.

12.               Letters Ex.R20, Ex.R22, Ex.R24, Ex.R26 and Ex.R28 were sent through postal receipts Ex.R21, Ex.R23, Ex.R25, Ex.R27 and Ex.R29 by Ops to the complainant for calling upon him to co-operate in process of investigation by submitting the required documents within specified period. Those document/information was not made available by the complainant to Ops and as such, it is contended that Ops entitled to treat the claim as no claim, due to receipt of no response from the complainant. That submission has no force in the light of letter Ex.R28 sent through postal receipt Ex.R29, vide which, complainant was called upon to submit the final police investigation report with charge sheet and document relating to driver confirmation only. As Ops themselves not sure as to who is treated as driver that is whether Ranjit Kumar or Lal Bahadur Yadav and as such, seeking of document relating to driver confirmation is for blowing hot and cold. However, the police investigation report/charge-sheet could not be submitted because of non filing of the same qua which intimation through letter Ex.C10 was sent by the complainant to Ops and as such, it cannot be said to be a case of total non co-operation by the complainant. Rather, through letter Ex.R29, documents like that of vehicle releasing order, certified copy of FIR, KYC document and document relating to driver confirmation along with copy of driving license, registration certificate etc was sought on 11.10.2012. However, through letter Ex.R28, only two documents namely one pertaining to driver confirmation and second pertaining to police final investigation report with charge-sheet were sought from the complainant and as such, contents of Ex.R28 and Ex.R29 read together along with Ex.C10, leaves no manner of doubt           that the complainant submitted certain documents like that of copy of registration certificate, vehicle release order and certified copy of FIR and that is why, demand with respect to submission thereof not put forth again through letter Ex.R28 of date 13.12.2012. When present is not a case of total non co-operation on the part of complainant, then certainly repudiation of claim could not have been taken place without passing any order till date. Ex.R30 to Ex.R37 are the documents which shows as if complainant supplied copy of FIR or of statement recorded u/s 154 of Cr.P.C or of certificate of registration or the National Permit certificate or the copy of driving license of Ranjit Kumar and even he submitted insurance claim form and as such, these documents fortifies our conclusion that the complainant submitted certain documents on being requisitioned by Ops. Ex.R38 is the copy of insurance cover note, whereas Ex.R39 is the verification report obtained with respect to driving license of Ranjit Kumar on 2.11.2015. However, this complaint was filed on 12.3.2015 and as such, virtually verification report regarding driving license of Ranjit Kumar obtained much after filing of this complaint. Ops appeared through counsel on 7.5.2015 and as such, said report virtually obtained  six months after putting in appearance by Ops. This shows   that Ops virtually obtained the report of driving license after appearance in this complaint, but without hearing the complainant. Principles of natural justice require that a party, against whom, any order to be passed, should be heard because of rule of ‘Audi alteram partem”. However, no compensation for mental harassment and agony or litigation expenses should be allowed in favour of the complainant, particularly when complaint has been filed without passing of any order of repudiation by Ops.

13.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OPs will reconsider the claim of complainant within 60 days from date of receipt of copy of the orders. Opportunity to complainant will be given to submit the requisite documents by issue of notice in writing within 15 days from date of receipt of copy of the orders. Thereafter, complainant will submit those documents within 15 days on receipt of written notice from OPs. After receipt of the documents an opportunity of personal hearing will also be given by OPs to complainant, so that he may offer any explanation regarding the doubts, if any. No order as to costs and compensation. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                      (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                  (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:19.07.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.