Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/64

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmukh Singh

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 30.01.2015

Date of Decision            :   24.08.2015

 

Bahadur Singh son of Late Sh.Karnail Singh, village Bijlipur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, K.L.Plaza, 132/3, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001, through its Branch Manager.

2.Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2363-64. Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager(Claims).

..…Opposite parties

 

   (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Gumukh Singh, Advocate for Sh.Vikram  

                                                Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh.Vyom Bansal, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Bahadur Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he, a driver by profession, purchased Ashok Leyland AL 1612(Truck) after getting the same financed from branch of OPs on 30.11.2013. That vehicle was insured vide policy No.3379/00969866 dated 5.12.2013. The said insurance was valid upto 4.12.2014, but insured truck met with an accident on 12.4.2014 and stood damaged badly. Information qua this accident was sent to OPs on 13.4.2014. Claim intimation letter was also sent to the OPs on 22.4.2014 alongwith requisite estimates(provisional) and reports. FIR No.75 dated 13.04.2014 u/s 279, 423 was registered at P.S.Kaimri, District Rampur. As per estimates (provisional), Rs.10,00,000/- are required for repair of the truck. In April 2014, Ops appointed their surveyor, who submitted report after inspecting the vehicle lying in the workshop of the agency. Thereafter, matter was kept pending till 26.6.2014, despite various visits by the complainant to the office of OPs for settlement of claim. Ultimately on 26.6.2014, Ops issued letter to complainant for calling upon him to submit certain documents. Even complainant was called upon to produce the vehicle during repair for re-inspection. Repair bills were also sought. That letter was received by the family members of the complainant in July 2014 at the time when he was on tour of Srinagar for delivering goods. Complainant could not submit reply  in  time. The agency where the vehicle lying in dilapidated condition requires advance money for starting work of repair of the truck, but complainant not in a position to pay the demanded amount. Complainant claims to be plying the vehicle for earning his livelihood. Complainant was called upon to get the vehicle repaired from their empanelled agency, but to no effect. Complainant after returning back from tour of Srinagar, approached Ops for getting information as if the claim case was closed due to non supply of information and documents. Even complainant was informed that he can get the case reopened by giving an application at Chandigarh branch, who is to clear the claim case. Complainant issued letter dated 5.8.2014 to Ops as well as to the Grievance Cell of Ops at Chennai through registered post for calling upon them to accept the claim. Complainant also asked for a copy of report of the surveyor, but to no effect. As reply to above said letter was not received and that is why a fresh letter dated 3.9.2014 was sent to the office of OP2 at Chandigarh branch. Claim has not been passed, despite the fact that Ops are duty bound to decide the claim case within 3 months. As copy of demanded survey report even not sent to the complainant and that is why he got the vehicle surveyed through registered surveyor, who issued report dated 1.1.2015. Rs.9,129/- was paid to the surveyor by the complainant. Complainant had also spent an amount of Rs.20,600/- for the permits.Deficiency in service on the part of Ops pleaded for claiming relief of amount of Rs.7,94,300/-, the amount assessed by the surveyor. Rs.20,600/- on account of loss of permits, but Rs.9,129/- as costs of survey report and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and loss of livelihood claimed. Interest @18% p.a. even claimed.

2.                          In joint written reply submitted by OPs, it is admitted that vehicle in question was insured during the period from 5.12.2013 to 4.12.2014 and claim of complainant was registered after getting information from him. However, despite sending of numerous letters and other communications to the complainant, he has not produced the vehicle for re-inspection during repair and nor he has provided the documents required for processing the claim. Claim of the complainant is still pending with the Ops. Complainant instead of complying with the terms of the policy, approached this Forum straightway. As complainant has not submitted the requisite information and that is why letter dated 26.6.2014 was sent by the Ops for intimating the complainant as if his claim shall be treated as ‘No Claim’, in case, documents and inspection report not provided within 7 days of receipt of letter. No  cause  of  action  has    accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum  because  damage to the vehicle not caused in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Even repair of the vehicle not got done in the area. Complainant alleged to be not a consumer. Terms of the contract of insurance has to be strictly construed. It is claimed that the complainant has tried to mislead this Forum with sole motive to extort illegal and unjust money from the Ops. Deficiency in  service not disclosed  by the complainant. Moreover, the question of law and facts involved in the present case requires leading of voluminous evidence and expert opinion and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction. Despite reminders sent to the complainant to provide documents, bills etc.,and a chance of inspection, complainant failed to comply with these requirements. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Manager Claims(Legal) of OP2 and even tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the Ops and same met with an accident during the covered insurance period. But as per Ex.C1=R1, the vehicle was insured during period from 5.12.2013 to 4.12.2014 vide policy No.3379/00969866 with Ops. Ex.C7 to Ex.C11 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 are documents proving that after registration of claim for damages put forth by the complainant, Ops called upon the complainant to produce his vehicle  during repair for re-inspection and even to submit the repair bills. Letters in this respect written by the Ops to the complainant on 2.6.2014 and 10.6.2014, but despite that compliance of the requirement was not done and that is why repudiation letter Ex.C7=R4 was sent for disclosing the complainant that as he has not sent the documents/information within 7 days of receipt of the letters and that is why the Ops will be constrained for treating the claim as ‘No Claim’. Rather through this letter Ex.C7=R4, the complainant was called upon to send the documents/information within 7 days from the date of receipt of letter. This complaint filed on 30.01.2015 and as such, assertion in para no.2 under head in the “preliminary objections” of written statement of Ops is incorrect that complainant instead of complying with the terms of the policy approached this Forum straightway. Rather if we go through the contents of para no.2 of the written statement under above said head, then it is made out that claim of the complainant still pending with the Ops. If said claim is pending, then decision of the same must be given within the time frame. Even through Ex.C7=R4 intimation alone given to the complainant to send documents/information within 7 days, failing which, his claim will be treated as ‘No Claim’. Ex.C7=R4 cannot be treated as final repudiation letter qua the alleged claim.

7.                Counsel for the Ops takes us through Clauses (b) and (c) of Section-I of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for arguing that responsibility of furnishing of detailed estimates of the costs of the repair will be of insured. Even as per these terms and conditions, the insured to assist the company in every respect for adjudication as to whether repairs are necessary and as to whether the charges borne are reasonable or not. As such assistance has to be provided by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the complainant must assist the company by producing the damaged vehicle for re-inspection of the officials appointed by OPs. Even complainant must produce the repair bills with Ops within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, so that his claim may be considered appropriately. Complete deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot be inferred. Rather, the claim case still not closed and as such, complaint needs be to be disposed of with the directions mentioned in the relief clause.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint disposed of in terms that complainant will produce the damaged vehicle for re-inspection and even will provide the repair bills to the Ops within 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the orders and on such production, Ops will consider the claim of the complainant within 60 days from such submission. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation and litigation costs is passed. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.