Complainant Kuldip Raj through the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,17,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a new car Hyundai Elantra CRDI SX from opposite party no.2 after getting loan from Punjab Gramin Bank, Pathankot. He insured its vehicle from opposite party no.1 having registration no.PB-35-Y-9818 and the policy having no.HAX/S8361138 was issued on 28.11.2016 valid upto 27.11.2017 after receiving the premium. Thus, he is consumer of the opposite parties. The vehicle was delivered to him on 28.11.2016 by opposite party no.2 and on the same day the vehicle was also insured. As the vehicle was purchased after getting loan from Gramin Bank and due to change of Govt. policy regarding the currency notes the bank failed to make the payment timely to the Novelty Hyundai and the bill was issued by the opposite party no.2 on 5.12.2016. It is the duty of the opposite party no.2 to make the R.C. as they received the amount from him. He has next pleaded that unfortunately his vehicle met with an accident on 25.12.2016 when he was driving the vehicle and due to the negligence of one truck the vehicle has become damaged and the truck ran away from the spot. He took the vehicle to the opposite party no.2 for its repair and an intimation regarding accident also given to the insurance company. Surveyor Vinay Sarswat duly inspected the vehicle and all the relevant documents were duly provided to the surveyor. As the policy is ‘Zero’ depreciation policy and is cashless one and the opposite party no.1 is having tie-up with opposite party no.2 as such, it is the duty of both the opposite parties not to charge any amount of repair from him. He has next pleaded that the insurance company started delaying the matter and with malafide intention the surveyor Vinay Sarswat started raising irrelevant queries and also sent two letters to him, which has been duly replied and submitted.  No FIR has been registered in the present case as no injury took place to any person. Inspite of all this, insurance company has not make any payment to the opposite party no.2 and they charged an amount of Rs.1,17,000/- from him for the repair of vehicle. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Actually, the claim was reported on 27.12.2016 and by going through the claim document, it is observed that provisional registration/road tax paid on 14.12.2016 after delivery of new vehicle on 28.11.2016 vide challan no.7810 instead of registering the vehicle at the time of delivery as per rules of Punjab Transport Department and Motor Vehicle Act. Further garage entry record got verified and found that the vehicle was reported at garage on 14.12.2016 for accidental repairs but the claim was reported on 27.12.2016 and as such there is manipulation of date of loss. So as the complainant was plying the vehicle on road by putting an invalid registration no. plate bearing no.PB-35-V-7810 on the vehicle after delivery on dated 28.11.2016 violating the rules and regulations of Punjab Transport Department and Motor Vehicle act 1988. Even by providing wrong information regarding actual date of loss. It amounts to the violation of the policy terms and conditions. The garage entry dated 14.12.2016 clearly established that vehicle met with an accident before paying road tax and as such the insured was plying the vehicle without valid provisional registration. So, from the all above facts it becomes clear that there is violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act which provides that vehicle must be registered before plying in public place. So, the claim has rightly been repudiated due to the breach of terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.  On merits, it was submitted that the complainant may put strict proof regarding the accident took place on 25.12.2016. As per documents submitted it becomes clear that the loss took place on 14.12.2016 but the complainant is intentionally gave wrong date at the time of filling claim form and the claim was reported on 27.12.2016. Other allegations made in the body of the complaint have been duly denied and contested by the opposite parties. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.          Opposite party no.2 has appeared and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On merits, it was admitted that car purchased by the complainant was got insured from opposite party no.1 on 28.11.2016, on the day, when the challan of the car was got issued in the name of the complainant. Some amount in advance was given by the complainant at the time of purchase of car and since it was loan case, the balance amount was to be paid by bank after sanction of the car loan in the name of the complainant and as per rules, at the time of issuance of invoice/challan, vehicle is to be got insured and accordingly, the same was get insured in the name of the complainant on the date of purchase of the car i.e. on the day of issuance of challan. It was further admitted that vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 28.11.2016 after getting the vehicle fully insured with opposite party no1 and this fact was also admitted that cheque was received by the opposite party from the bank on 5.12.2016 but the payment was not received by opposite party on 5.12.2016 and the invoice was got issued in the name of the complainant. The cheque received by the opposite party from the complainant, same was presented to bank for its clearance and as per record available, cheque was cleared and account of the opposite was credited on 9.12.2016 and information was received by the opposite party on 12.12.2016 i.e. on Monday and immediately after clearing the cheque, process for applying R.C.  was made and its as on 14.12.2016 when payment was made to D.T.O. and regn.Number was got issued in name of the complainant. It was next admitted that the opposite party had not paid any amount to the opposite party as they had rejected the claim of the complainant and accordingly, after rejection the claim of the complainant by the opposite party no.1, opposite party had issued invoice of repair amounting of Rs.1,17,000/- which the complainant had paid to the opposite party without any objection.  Other allegations made in the body of the complaint have been duly denied and contested by the opposite parties. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence,

6.             On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Sh.R.Pardeep Kumar, Authorized Signatory of opposite party no.1 Ex.OP1/1, alongwith the other documents exhibited as Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP-1/22 and closed the evidence.

7.      Opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria, attorney holder Ex.OP-2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2, to Ex.OP-2/7 and closed the evidence.

8.    We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to determine their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint.

9.       We find that the present dispute had prompted at the OP insurer’s duly admitted repudiation of the complainant’s accident insurance claim of the insured Novelty Hyundai vehicle that had gone damaged in a Road Side Accident on 25.12.2016. Incidentally, the repairs had been alleged to have cost Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant whereas the opposite party insurers had repudiated the related insurance claim in terms of the appointed Surveyor’s report alleging that the insured car was registered with the competent authority on 14.12 2016 whereas the insurance was purchased on 28.11.2016 proving thereby non-registration of the vehicle during the intervening period amounting to violation of law and in turn a violation of policy terms. The OP insurers have further alleged that the date of accident has also been wrongly postponed to get the accident claim settled. However, the OP insurers have failed to produce the surveyor’s deposition and/or other supporting evidence to prove that the loss incurred to the car has not been an outcome of Road Side Accident alleged to have occurred on 25.12.2016.

10.     On the other hand, the complainant has filed his deposition (affidavit Ex.C1) and other evidence vide documents (Ex.C2 to Ex.C7) proving thereby that the OP2 Vendor had received the margin money in advance on 28.11.2016 but had drawn the Bill/ Invoice on 05.12.2016 only upon receipt of the full amount from the financing Bank and thus the RC though delayed by a few days; was duly prepared well within the stipulated grace period. The OP2 Vendor has also stated/deposed on similar lines as towed by the complainant duly ratifying the complainant’s version vide the produced evidence through the documents exhibited here as Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/7.

11.     The OP1 insurers have placed forth their evidence vide the produced documents exhibited here as Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/22 but have somehow omitted to produce/file the estimated Repairs/Survey Bills and/or any other cogent evidence to prove their allegations as contented/submitted vide their written statement/rebuttals etc.

12.      Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of their own inadvertent mistaken interpretation of the applicable governing law. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/exhibit its bona fide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

13.     In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the amount of the impugned claim (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid.  

14.     Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.                    

                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President.     

ANNOUNCED:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

April 09, 2018.                                                      Member.

*MK*