Complainant Tarlok Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,33,780/- qua his claim immediately in terms of the insurance policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of accident till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of the Car Swift Dzire VDI Model 2011 bearing registration no.PB-07-AS-3797 which was financed from the opposite party no.3 and also got insured with the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.3 at Gurdaspur vide policy/Cover Note No.9721251 valid from 20.01.2016 to 19.01.2017 for Rs.3,60,000/-. On 10.2.2016 the vehicle met with an accident at Barnala Road Near Y.S.School Barnala, P.P. Handiya District Barnala and he lodged the report with the police. After the accident, he immediately informed the opposite parties and requested for appointing Surveyor for assessing loss suffered by him but they did not appoint any surveyor rather the opposite party no.1 denied insurance of his vehicle with him, despite the facts that his vehicle was fully insured with the opposite parties. He has next pleaded that he aggrieved by this act of the opposite parties, he hired surveyor Mr.Hardeep Singh Bedi at his own who assessed the loss suffered by him and thereafter, he got his vehicle repaired from Elite Car Care, Near ITI (Boys) G.T.Road, Gurdaspur. He spent Rs.1,33,780/- on the repair of the vehicle including spare parts and other charges. He submitted his claim to the opposite party no.1 supported with the report of Surveyor and bills issued by the above mentioned workshop but the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed for making the payment of loss suffered by him, rather putting him off and on with one or the other lame excuse. He also gave information of the same to the opposite parties no.2 and 3. This act on the part of the opposite parties is illegal, null and void and against the rules of the policy. He is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- besides the amount of claim for the mental torture, physical harassment and financial loss. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He served registered AD legal notice dated 2.5.2016, requesting the opposite parties to honour his claim but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

 3.      Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act; the insurance is a contract between the two parties; there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Actually, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 9 June, 2017 as the alleged accident took place on 10 February, 2016 but the claim was intimated to us with a delay i.e. on 31 March, 2017 which creates doubt. Further the delay in intimation has not been satisfactory explained. The policy terms and conditions no.1 clearly provides that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance to the company as the company shall require. So, it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligation, so the claim has rightly been repudiated due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, it was submitted that the claim has been filed but it has been filed after a huge delay. The alleged date of loss is 10.02.2016 but the claim has been filed on 31.3.2017. So, it is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy which provides immediate written information. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; earlier also the present complainant has been filed similar type of complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties but the same has been dismissed  as withdrawn. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to file the present complaint on the same cause of action; the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the opposite party no.3, at any stage. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. It was next submitted that the complainant approached to the opposite party and requested for grant of loan/financial assistance, so as to enable the complainant to purchase used Swift Dzire Car, Model 2011, bearing Registration No.PB-07-AS-3797. The complainant gave assurance to the opposite party that he will abide all the terms and conditions, on which loan may be granted to him by the opposite party. On the assurance of the complainant, the opposite party gave loan/financial facility to him vide loan agreement no.XSHUGDR000001574032, which was executed between the complainant and the opposite party at Jalandhar, whereby the complainant agreed that the loan amount shall be repaid alongwith up to date interest. The loan amount has already been disbursed. The opposite party has no concern whatsoever with the settlement of the insurance claim as the contract of insurance is between the owners of the vehicle i.e. the complainant and the insurance company i.e. opposite parties no.1 and 2 and it is the insurance company who settles the insurance claims of their customer. However in the present complaint as per the knowledge of the opposite party, the complainant had not filed any claim before the Insurance Company i.e. opposite parties no.1 and 2 as such his claim was not settled by the insurance company i.e. opposite parties no.1 and 2. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

5.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and closed the evidence. 

6.         Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Satyabratta Das, Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/5 and closed the evidence.

7.        Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vikal Sharma attorney of M/s.Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Co. Ltd. Ex.OP3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/5 and closed the evidence.

8.      We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the impugned ‘repudiation’ dated 09.06.2017 of the insured Car’ accident claim by the OP insurers alleging violation of the related policy-terms on account of an inordinate delayed intimation of the car-accident by the present complainant. Further, the OP insurers even refused to appoint its Surveyor to assess the ‘damage’ caused to the car and thus the complainant had to arrange his own surveyor for assessment of loss and its subsequent repairs @ Rs.1,33,780/- only to file the insurance claim but to face the impugned repudiation. Further, we find that the present complainant as well as the titled insurers have failed to produce somewhat acceptable/sufficiently cogent evidence to prove their inter-se allegations and its counters etc. The complainant besides his own affidavit Ex.Cw1/A has produced (Ex.C2 to Ex.C22) its supporting documents to prove his compliant contented charges/ allegations.

9.       On the other hand, the OP insurers have duly deposed vide its affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 (written reply) and other papers Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/5 (Policy Terms etc) that the impugned claim was repudiated on 09.06.2017 on account of the delayed intimation of the road-accident thus violating the terms of the related policy the terms of which however are not proved to have been served upon the complainant. However, the OP1/OP2 insurers have not contested the complainant produced survey assessment @ Rs.1,33,780/- vide some other counter assessment etc. The analytic evaluation of the available evidence indicates of an arbitrary and hasty ‘repudiation’ since the alleged delay (not even cogently proved through some reliable evidence) cannot be held to have caused an irreversible damage to survey/investigation to be taken up as per their (the insurers) vital professional right. Somehow, we find that the instant repudiation rakes up the OP1 & OP2 insurers to an adverse statutory award whereas no relief was ever sought against the OP3 financers who may not have been even needed to enjoin the current proceedings.

10.     Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the opposite party insurers to pay Rs.1,33.780/- (the complainant surveyor assessed amount) to the present complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.   

       (Naveen Puri)

            President

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

May 04, 2018                                                           Member.

*MK*