DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

                                                  RBT/Consumer Complaint No. 464of 26.07.2018

                                                  Date of Decision: 19.12.2022

Shiv Kumar son of Sh. Fakir Chand, resident of House No.1717/16-B, Fatehgarh Mohall, Chand Cinema, Ludhiana 

                                                                                          ……Complainant

                                                            Versus

1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Chairman/MD/Authorized representative
2.  
1.  
2.  

Indusing Bank Limited, SCO-21, Feroze Gandhi Market, Opposite Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana, through its Manager

                                                                                              ….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:-

                              SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                              SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:-

                              Sh.Sarabjit Singh Chatrath, Adv. For complainant

                              Sh. Vyom Bansal, Adv. For OP1

                              OP No.2 ex-parte 

ORDER:-

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one vehicle Auto bearing No.PB-10-ES-0726 Piaggio Variant Pickup, which is financed by the OP2 having loan No.PLL01808G and insured by the OP1. The invoice amount of the vehicle is Rs.2,42,000/- and the finance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the said vehicle insured at the time of purchase and premium of insurance was paid for Rs.10,000/- and the OP2 charge the total amount of interest Rs.69430/- and the same was financed by the OP2 for the period of 36 months. The complainant was regularly paying the instalment of the vehicle purchased by him. The said vehicle bearing No.PB-10-ES-0726 was stolen on 06.03.2016 by some unknown person and the FIR was got registered in this regard. At the time of stolen of the vehicle, the same was insured. The complainant was duly informed to the OP1 about the said incident on 7.3.2016,  but the OP No.1 in connivance with OP2 with malafide intention or to cheat the complainant insured the stolen vehicle for the period from 29.4.2016 to 28.4.2017, bearing policy No.3379/01187548/000/01, without the consent of the complainant after the theft of vehicle and deducted the insurance premium i.e. Rs.12,247/- from the account of the complainant which is maintained with OP2. The complainant several times make request before the OP1 not to do illegal act by issuance of the insurance policy for the stolen vehicle which is not still recovered, but the OP1 was adamant on its illegal act and conduct. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, complainant has sought the following reliefs against the Ops:-

1. To pay Rs.12,247/- deducted by the OP1 as insurance premium and to pay rs.1,00,000/- retained by the OP1 with regard to insurance claim of stolen vehicle and the OP2 to pay Rs.10,707/- which is retained by OP2 with regard to said loan account.

2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment

2.       Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OP1 has filed written reply, taking preliminary objections; that the present claim is pre mature in nature as the claim is yet to be decided by the insurance company; that the present complaint is frivolous and not tenable; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Commission; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which cannot be tried and decided in the summary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured by the answering OP. It is stated that the claim towards theft of the insured vehicle was intimated by the complainant on 13.3.2016 to the answering OP and immediately, the answering OP was appointed Sh. SS Bedi, Investigator who appointed to investigate the cause of theft and other information who submitted his report dated 7.4.2016 as per the which the complainant had not supplied complete documents to the investigator and also did not cooperate with the investigator to process the claim. But the complainant has failed to produce the required documents with the OPs, therefore, for want to documents the OP1 is unable to process his claim. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the OP2 has choosen to remain exparte vide order dated 29.03.2019.

4.       The learned counsel for the contesting parties has closed their respective evidence after tendering affidavit and certain documents in their support.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully.

6.       From the perusal of the case file, it is clear that the complainant has intimated regarding theft of the vehicle in question to the OP1 (Insurance Company) in time. After receiving the intimation, the OP1 deputed surveyor and directed to submit the report. After receiving the report of the investigator, the OP1 demanded the documents for processing the claim of the complainant but the complainant was not submitted the required documents with the insurance company because of this, the OP1 was enable to settle the claim of the complainant. In its written reply, OP1 never denied this thing that insurance company not paid the claim amount to the complainant. So, the complainant is duty bound to submit the documents with the OP1 for processing/passing the claim. 

7.       In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to submit the documents required by the OP1 for processing the claim. The OP1 is also directed to settle the claim of the complainant after receiving the required documents as early as possible.  Free certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room. 

Announced:

19.12.2022.                                                           (RANJIT SINGH)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                MEMBER