THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 216 of 2015

Date of Institution : 9.4.2015

Date of Decision : 1.10.2015

Ravinderjit Singh s/o Kashmir Singh R/o VPO Thothian, Tehsil Baba Bakala aged 36 years, Distt.Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Bharti AXA General Insurance company Limited, SCO No. 44, B-Block, Nagpal Towers-2, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Kuljit Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.R.P. Singh,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Ravinderjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he being the owner of car make Ford Figo bearing registration No. PB-02-BJ-0271 got insured the same with the opposite party vide insurance cover note No. 33156384 valid from 7.4.2014 to 6.4.2015. On 22.8.2014 the said car met with an accident and FIR No. 109 dated 25.8.2014 at P.S. Verowal u/s 279 was registered against the complainant. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from Bhagat Ford, Amritsar and lodged the claim with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 76540/- i.e. the amount spent on repair of vehicle. But the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol/drug as mentioned by the author of FIR. Complainant has alleged that the said allegation made by the author of FIR is without any medical record or examination and as such the said allegation is false and frivolous. Complainant has alleged that opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 76540/- alongwith interest @13% p.a.. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that letters dated 5.11.2014, 18.11.2014, 25.11.2014 & 3.3.2015 were issued to the complainant and sought clarifications and for providing documents, but no satisfactory reply was given nor MLR , copy of challan submitted by the police was provided. It was submitted that in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the driver of the car was under the influence of liquor when the accident was caused, therefore, in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, there is no liability of the opposite party to make the payment of claim. While submitting that the claim has rightly been repudiated and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10.

4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Shivali Sharma,Sr.Legal Executive Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP9.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle Ford Figo car bearing registration No. PB 02 BJ 0271 insured with the opposite party vide insurance cover note No. 33156384 Ex.C-7 for the period from 7.4.2014 to 6.4.2015. On 22.8.2014 the said car met with an accident. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which FIR No. 109 dated 25.8.2014 Ex.OP6,P.S. Verowal u/s 279 IPC was registered. The complainant got his vehicle repaired from Bhagat Ford ,Amritsar and lodged claim with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 76540/-. But the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant who was driving the car in question at the time of accident was under the influence of alcohol as mentioned by the author of FIR in the FIR Ex.OP9. The complainant submitted that the said allegation was levelled by the author of FIR against the complainant without any medical record or examination, as such the said allegation was false and frivolous one. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in the FIR, it has been specifically mentioned that the driver of the car was under the influence of liquor when the accident took place. So as per the terms and conditions of the policy there is no liability of the opposite party to make the payment of the claim to the complainant. Opposite party further submitted that letters dated 5.11.2014 Ex.OP2, 18.11.2014 Ex.OP3, 25.11.2014 Ex.OP4 and 3.3.2015 Ex.OP5 were issued to the complainant for seeking clarification and providing documents . But no satisfactory reply was given nor MLR, copy of challan submitted by the police was provided. Therefore, it is the complainant, who is at fault. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that complainant got his vehicle No. PB-02-BJ-0271 Ford Figo car insured with the opposite party vide cover note Ex.C-7 for the period from 7.4.2014 to 6.4.2015. The said car met with an accident on 22.8.2014. The matter was reported to the police by one Kulwant Singh on the basis of which FIR No.109 dated 25.8.2014 was registered at P.S. Verowal against the complainant. In the said FIR author of the FIR namely Kulwant Singh who had seen the accident has reported to the police that the car was being driven by the driver in a state of intoxicant i.e. under the influence of liquor. It may be mentioned here that driver of the car i.e. complainant Ravinderjit Singh was not arrested at the time and place of accident nor he was medically examined nor any MLR of the complainant has been produced/procured by the police as well as the opposite party nor the opposite party could produce any evidence to prove that the complainant was seen taking liquor before the said accident by any person. Opposite party has produced on record the judgement of that case FIR No. 109 dated 25.8.2014 ,P.S.Verowal delivered by the court of Mrs.Amandeep Kaur Chahal, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib District Amritsar dated 2.3.2013 in which said author of the FIR Kulwant Singh was examined as PW1 and he categorically stated that “accused present in the court (complainant in the present complaint) was not driving the car at the time of accident and he did not identify the accused present in the court”. He was declared hostile and was cross examined but nothing favourable to the prosecution came out of his cross examination. Similarly other eye witnesses Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh have also deposed that “accused (complainant in the present complaint) was not driving the car at the time of accident”. Opposite party could not produce any evidence to prove that complainant Ravinderjit Singh was under the influence of liquor while driving the car at the time of accident.

9. Resultantly we hold that opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding the repair of the car on the ground that complainant was driving the car under the influence of liquor at the time of said accident in which the car was damaged.

10. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of his car amounting to Rs. 76540/- as per bill Ex.C-5 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders; failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% interest on the aforesaid amount ofRs. 76540/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expeses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

1.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member