Punjab

StateCommission

FA/684/2013

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chamkaur Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Neena Madan

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.684 of 2013

 

                                                Date of Institution:  24.06.2013.

                                                Date of Decision:            20.02.2015.

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bhagat Singh Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Barnala through its Branch Manager, now through Shri A.L. Madan, Manager, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A Chandigarh.

                                                     …..Appellant/opposite party

Versus

 

Chamkaur Singh S/o Sh. Gurmel Singh resident of Village Uppli, Post Office Dhanaula, District Barnala.

                                                     ….Respondent/complainant

 

Appeal against order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.     

 

Present:-

 

     For the appellant                   :     Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate

For the respondent      :     Sh. Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate.

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                   The appellant (opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent herein (complainant in the complaint) challenging the order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala (in short, “the District Forum”), accepting the complaint of the respondent of this appeal directing the OP now appellant to pay the amount of Rs.52,945.75 paise along with interest 9% per annum from the date accident till its payment, besides Rs.15,000/- costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant.

2.           The complainant Chamkaur Singh has filed this complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the opposite party, on the allegations that he has purchased one comprehensive insurance policy for his vehicle make Tata 2515 Truck bearing registration no.PB-13Q-6360 from the OP for the period from 02.06.2009 to 01.06.2010 by paying the premium therefor. Unfortunately, the above vehicle met with an accident on 27.09.2009 near village Nanakwari, District Muradabad. The complainant has alleged that the complaint about this accident was lodged with the police station and he duly intimated the OP about it. On the instructions of the OP, the complainant placed the above truck with M/s Kissan Motors Barnala an authorized service station of Tata Motors.  The complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.9000/- for transporting the vehicle from the place of accident to the above service station. The surveyor visited Kissan Motors Service Station and took photographs of the vehicle in question and assessed the loss thereto, as suffered by the complainant. The documents were also received from the complainant i.e. copy of report, copy of R.C. and copy of driving licence by the surveyor. The complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.90,635/- for the repair of the vehicle and also supplied all the documents to the OP, as desired by them. On 06.02.2010, the complainant served a legal notice upon OP through his counsel Sh. Rakesh Singla Advocate for settlement of the insurance claim. OP submitted reply to the legal notice stating that the insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by it. The repudiation letter did not reach the complainant till date. That OP is deficient in service and is guilty of unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.99,635/-, as insurance claim besides costs of litigation Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment.
3.           Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in the reply by the OP that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in this case on its part. That complaint has been filed by the complainant on baseless allegations only. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, as pleaded by the OP. On merits, the complaint was resisted by the OP. It was denied that OP has not supplied the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. It was further pleaded that complainant was fully aware about the terms and conditions of the policy. The truck in question was insured subject to certain terms and conditions of the insurance policy. That intimation regarding the accident was received on 05.10.2009, whereas the accident took place on 27.09.2009. It was denied that complainant spent Rs.9000/- for transporting the vehicle from the place of accident to Kissan Motors, service station. The amount of Rs.2500/- is admissible under the terms and conditions of the policy for transporting the vehicle from the place of accident to service station. The OP asked the complainant to supply the necessary documents, vide letter dated 08.02.2010. OP wrote another letters dated 09.03.2010, 28.04.2010 & 09.07.2010 to complainant demanding the production of documents and asking the complainant as to why the spot was not arranged. OP also wrote letter dated 13.12.2010 to complainant to give its reply within 10 day, but he failed to give reply. The insurance claim of the complainant stood repudiated, vide letter dated 31.12.1010 on account of "No claim". The complainant has concealed all these facts from the Forum. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the above grounds.
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence copy of policy document Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C-2 to C-14 and his affidavit Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal of this evidence, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of
   M. Dhawal Ex.R-1, affidavit of Vinod Kumar Ex.R-2 along with documents Ex.R-3 to R-27 and thereafter closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 11.04.2013 under challenge in this appeal, directing the OP to pay the amount of Rs.52,945.75 paise to complainant along with interest @9% p.a. and Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. Dissatisfied with the above order of District Forum, the OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. It was submitted before this Commission by counsel for the appellant that District Forum recorded wrong findings to the effect that the complainant had not received the letters dated 31.12.2010, 13.12.2010, 09.03.2010 and 28.04.2010, on the ground that no postal receipts were produced by the OP. That complainant admitted that he received letter dated 09.03.2010 and in pursuance of the letter, he submitted the documents to the OP, but they did not issue the receipt. That District Forum has not considered this fact that the entries of dispatch register Ex.R-16 show that all the letters were dispatched to the complainant. The submission raised by counsel for the appellant before this Commission is that all these letters were duly sent to the complainant from time to time by the OP now appellant, but the complainant now respondent neglected to give any reply of these letters resulting into repudiation of the claim of the complainant.
6.           We have to refer to evidence on the record to determine this controversy between the parties. The copy of insurance policy is Ex.C-1 on the record. This document is not undisputed in this case. Ex.C-2 is the intimation to the police regarding the accident of truck bearing registration no.PB-13Q-6360. Ex.C-3 is the receipt regarding receiving amount of Rs.9000/- for transportation of truck in question from the place of accident to service station. Ex.C-4 is the copy of grand total amount of Rs.58,035/-. Ex.C-5 is the tax invoice recording the detail of repair charges. Bills Ex.C-6 to C-9 are also on the record regarding charges recovered from the complainant.
   Ex.C-10 is the copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-11 is the driving licence in the name of Jagtar Singh. Ex.C-12 is legal notice sent by the complainant to the OP, claiming amount of Rs.90,635/-. Ex.C-14 is the reply to the legal notice to the effect that complainant is not entitled to insurance claim of Rs.90,635/- for repair charges. That complainant has not supplied claim form duly completed, driving license, re-inspection report and spot surveyor report and hence the claim was repudiated. Ex.C-15 is the affidavit of complainant in support of his averments, as pleaded in the complaint.
7.           OP strongly relied upon affidavit of Dr. M.Dhawal, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Sangrur to the effect that intimation of accident of truck in question was received on 05.10.2009, whereas the accident took place on 27.09.2009. That truck was not parked for repair on the instruction of OP. It was denied that complainant incurred Rs.9000/- for escorting the vehicle from the place of accident to Kissan Motors, service station. He further stated in this affidavit on oath that complainant has not supplied the driving license to the surveyor deputed by the company and surveyor never told the complainant to settle the claim on the basis of bills alone. He asked the complainant to supply the necessary documents, vide letter dated 08.02.2010. The complainant was again reminded, vide letters dated 09.03.2010, 28.04.2010 & 09.07.2010 to send the documents, but to no effect. That complainant has failed to produce the documents, hence his claim was sent as no claim by the OP and the due intimation was given to him as well. The affidavit of Vinod Kumar approved surveyor is Ex.R-2 on the record to the effect that complainant failed to submit final bills and failed to get re-inspection of the truck after its repair. He further stated that he assessed the loss of Rs.52,945.75 paise subject to terms and conditions of the policy. That he submitted the report dated 23.01.2010 about it. Ex.R-3 is the repudiation letter addressed to the complainant by the OP, Ex.R-4 is the letter dated 13.12.2010 addressed to the complainant, that in case he has not completed the formalities within 10 days, the claim would be taken as no claim. Ex.R-5 and R-8 is the reminder letters addressed to the complainant. Ex.R-9 is the letter also addressed to the complainant.
8.           Now the question before us for adjudication is whether these letters were dispatched and were received by the complainant in this case or not. The OP simply relied upon the entries of dispatch register. Ex.R-17 to contend that these letters were sent to the complainant. We find that the entries are recorded about the dispatched letters. We find that Ex.R-19 is the postal receipt in the name Chamkaur Singh, it indicates that this letter was sent to him on 12.07.2010. The postal receipts Ex.R-23 dated 15.12.2010 is also in the name of Chamkaur Singh complainant. Affidavit of Hardev Singh Branch Manager of OP Ex.R-25 is on the record stating on oath that letters were duly sent to complainant on 09.03.2010, 28.03.2010 and 09.07.2010 with regard to this matter. We find that the letter dated 13.12.2010 is proved by means of postal receipt Ex.R-23 to have been sent to Chamkaur Singh. The letter dated 09.07.2010 is proved to has been sent to Chamkaur Singh through postal receipt Ex.R-19. There is affidavit of the OP on the record regarding sending of all these letters to complainant. Quite possible, that each and every postal receipt is not maintained and hence we can presume that the OP sent the letters requiring complainant to supply the documents. The complainant has not responded to all these letters, as per the contentions of the OP now appellant. The claim of the complainant can be finalized only on submission of the demanded documents by the complainant to the OP.
9.           The District Forum has overlooked these letters, which are proved to have been supported by postal receipts, as well having been sent to the complainant asking him to supply the documents. Mere serving of legal notice by the complainant would not be able to rebut these documents. The District Forum has not given due weightage to the above referred letters, which are proved by the dispatch entries and the postal receipts asking the complainant to submit the documents. The claim of the complainant was treated as "no claim" on account of non-submission of documents by the complainant to the OP, as demand from him.
10.           In the light of our above discussions, we find that District Forum failed to consider this important aspect of the matter.  Unless and until the complainant supplied the required documents to the OP, his insurance claim cannot be finalized by them. So in circumstances of the case, the order of the District Forum accepting the complaint is not sustainable and is ordered to be set aside in this appeal by this bench.
11.           As a result of our above, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of the District Forum dated 11.04.2013, we hereby direct the complainant to supply the necessary documents to the OP within a period of 14 days after receipt of the copy of this order through registered post, whereupon the OP is directed to decide the insurance claim of the complainant within period of one month without failing from receipt of the supply of required documents by the complainant. The appeal stands disposed of in this way.
12.           The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing this appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.        The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 20, 2015.                                                             

(MM)