Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :  45 of 2018

Date of Institution                      : 01.05.2018

Date of Decision               : 18.09.2019

Bhupinder Singh son of Hardeep Singh, resident of House No. 391 Gali Shital Singh Wali, Guru Ka Khooh, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit No. SF-2, 261, Lajput Kunj, 2^nd Floor, Eminent Mall, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar, 144001 through its Manager,
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at 1^st Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No. 28, Doddanekundi, Banglore 560037, India through its M.D.

…Opposite Parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. H.S. Sandhu Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Joginder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section  12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against  and others(Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to release the insurance claim amounting to Rs. 11,818/- to the complainant being bills of repair paid by the complainant and the complainant has also prayed Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that for his personal transport needs, he had purchased one Car of Toyota Make namely Etios LIVA having registration No. PB46-M-5555 insured with the opposite parties vide insurance policy NO. FPV/I2160267/P3/03/004526 and account No. P3000366 issued by the opposite parties on 1.4.2016 at about 4.00 P.M. by receiving the insurance premium from the complainant amounting to Rs. 16,627/- The insurance policy as valid from 1.4.2016 to midnight on 31.3.2017. On 31.3.2017 unfortunately the above said vehicle of the complainant met with a road since accident and he immediately approached the Castel Toyota Agency of Toyota Company situated at village Piddi Harike Road, Tarn Taran, where this agency called the representative of the opposite parties to conduct survey of the damaged vehicle and also for getting approval of the opposite parties for repairing the damaged vehicle cashless and for receiving the bills of repairs and for payment of these bills. The representative of the opposite parties visited the Castle Toyota Agency and fulfilled the necessary formalities for approval of the claim and repairs and the Castle Toyota Agency repaired the vehicle and asked for Rs. 11,818/- as repair bills from the complainant. The complainant told the Castle Toyota Agency that as the vehicle was insured by the opposite parties but the officials told the complainant that the opposite parties have refused to pay the insurance bills without giving any reason for the same and as such, the complainant had to pay the bill from his own pocket. The complainant again called the representatives of the opposite parties regarding the above said demand by the Castle Toyota Agency and also asked them to pay the repairs bills of the insured vehicle to the agency but they flatly refused to pay any bills of the complainant vehicle and as such for the sake of releasing the vehicle from the agency for his daily needs, the complainant had to pay Rs.11,818/- from his own pocket to the Castle Agency to inspite of having paid premium of the insurance policy for the insurance of the vehicle in question.  Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. He is guilty of concealment of true and material facts, as such, he is not entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint. The complainant himself has concocted a false story and put forward wrong facts just in order to seek the present relief and further just in order to harass, humiliate the opposite party and further in order to gain monitory benefits. The opposite party has demanded relevant documents from the complainant on numerous occasions and even number of representations were sent to the complainant but the complainant was least interested to submit the relevant documents and when the complainant has not fulfilled the basic requirements then only the opposite party has closed the case as complainant failed to submit the relevant documents despite demanded through number of representations. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that there is not any valid legal policy between the complainant and opposite party. No complaint was lodged with the police officials nor any intimation was sent to the opposite party and just in order to have monitory gains the present story was concocted by the complainant.  Actually, the accident took place much after 31.3.2017 but the complainant filed this false complaint in order to get the wrongful claim. The driver of the vehicle was not possessing effective and valid driving license at the time of accident.  The opposite parties have denied the other allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have filed affidavit of Akshay Kumar Ex. OPs/1, copy of 1^st reminder letter dated 30.4.2017 Ex. OPs/2, copy of 2^nd reminder letter dated 11.5.2017 Ex. OPs/3, copy of final reminder letter dated 23.5.2017 Ex. OPs/4, Copy of motor repair assessment Ex. OPs/5, Copy of Tax Invoice issued by the Toyota Ex. OPs/6, set of photographs Ex. OPs/7, copy of motor insurance claim form Ex. OPs/8, copy of driving license of Gurdev Singh Ex. OPs/9, Copy of registration cover of PB46-M-5555 Ex. OPs/10, copy of motor vehicle insurance cover note Ex. OPs/11, Copy of certificate of insurance & Schedule Ex. OPs/12, Copy of smart drive-private car insurance policy- policy wordings Ex. OPs/13.

4        The complainant has filed rejoinder and controverted the stand taken by the opposite parties in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint. Alongwith the rejoinder, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Insurance Policy Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Bill of repair Ex. C-3.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        There is no dispute that the car bearing registration No. PB46-M-5555 was got insured by the complainant from opposite party vide insurance cover copy of which is Ex.C-2. The opposite parties have placed on record letters Ex. OPs/2, Ex. OP/3 and Ex. OP/4 and demanded the documents from the complainant and have intimated in these applications that ‘Please note in case we do not receive any response from your good self on above within seven days from the date of issue of this letter we would presume that you are no more interested in pursuing the claim and would leave us with no option other than to close the claim without payment’. While these letters Ex. OPs/2 to Ex. OPs/4 the opposite parties demanded the requisite documents which have not been provided to opposite party.   On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant has supplied all the requisite documents to the opposite parties in time and the opposite parties with malafide intention are not releasing the claim to the complainant  In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents again and again and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant. 

7        While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it. 

8        In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents.

9        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents demanded by the opposite parties -Insurance Company vide letter Ex.OPs/2, OP/3 and Ex. OPs/4 to opposite parties with 15 days and thereafter the opposite parties will decide the matter within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and on approaching the complaint for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite parties will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite parties shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of two months therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.