Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Hari Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he got the insurance for his vehicle Chevorlet Sail car bearing registration No.PB-02Q-1846 from Opposite Party covering the risk period from 1.11.2014 to 31.10.2015. Said vehicle was to be used by the complainant for his personal use, the copy of the cover note is attached with the complaint and he is a consumer  as described under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Forum. Said vehicle unfortunately met with an accident  on 23.3.2015 around 8 pm near Jandiala Near Coca Cola Factory and the police authorities were also informed and the Opposite Party was intimated in the morning and the vehicle was towed to the service station of the Company M/s.S.V.Motors and the Opposite Party appointed its surveyor who surveyed the said vehicle and the said service station made the preliminary estimate of  repair of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.4,16,066/-. It is pertinent to mention over here that the IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.6,01,240/-. The Opposite Party later claimed that they were not intimated about the loss, the complainant made the intimation on telephone to the Opposite Party as well as the FIR No. 72 was lodged at P.S.Jandiala Guru to the effect. The complainant later on could not pursue the matter with the Opposite Party due to some family disturbance. The complainant thereafter, in the month of May, 2015 made several futile visits to the Opposite Party to settle the genuine claim, but the Opposite Party instead of settling the genuine claim of the complainant repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 18.6.2015 on the flimsy grounds that the complainant made late intimation of the claim. The said  repudiation is against the true facts and the law. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party in not settling the genuine claim of the complainant is an act of deficiency in services, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law  and has caused the agony and harassment to the complainant and for which the Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-  

a)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the claim of Rs.4,16,066/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 23.3.2015 till its realization.

b)      Opposite Party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate costs of the present litigation.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The complainant did not inform the replying Opposite Party within the stipulated time period. The alleged accident took place on 23.3.2015, but the complainant did not inform the Opposite Party regarding the said accident till 23.4.2015. As such, there was a delay of approximately 31 days for informing the Opposite Party. Moreover, the vehicle in question was under hypothecation of Indusind Bank and there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, which has already been paid by the replying Opposite Party to the Indusind Bank on 31.10.2015. The complainant has concealed the aforesaid facts from this Forum, hence he is not entitled to any relief; that the complainant has no  locus standi to file the present complaint against the replying Opposite Party. On merits, the facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer       for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ashotosh Kumar, Manager Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has vehemently contended that the alleged accident took place on 23.3.2015 whereas the Opposite Party was intimated regarding the accident only on 23.4.2015, which shows that there is inordinate  delay in intimating the Opposite Party regarding the accident in dispute. Since there was inordinate delay, therefore, considering all the aspects of the case, the Opposite Party was obliged to decline the claim of the complainant vide letter  dated 18.06.2015, copy whereof is Ex.OP2 on record.

7.       Moreover, the complainant is also guilty of  suppression of material facts from this Forum as well as Opposite Party. The vehicle in dispute was under hypothecation with Indusind Bank and an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was due and payable by the complainant to Indusind Bank on account loan. The Opposite Party has made the payment to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- to Indusind Bank on 31.10.2015. Since, the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same may be dismissed accordingly.

8.       But however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes  evident that the complainant got insurance policy  for his vehicle Chevorlet Sail car bearing registration No.PB-02Q-1846 from Opposite Party covering the risk period from 1.11.2014 to 31.10.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C2. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in dispute met with an accident on 23.3.2015 around 8 pm at Jandiala (Near Coca Cola Factory).An FIR to that effect was immediately lodged by the complainant at P.S.Jandiala Guru, copy whereof is C3. It is the case of the complainant that he has intimated the Opposite Party immediately on telephone, but even then if it is presumed that Opposite Party was intimated on 23.4.2015, even then the genuine claim of the complainant can not be thrown away simply on the basis of delay in intimating the matter to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is admitted to have appointed a surveyor who visited the vehicle in dispute and submitted his report regarding the loss occurred to the vehicle of the complainant. But however, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds that the intimation regarding the accident has been intimated  to them at belated stage. But however, that can not be treated to be a valid ground for declining the claim. The complainant has suffered loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,16,066/-, copy of the bill issued by the service centre i.e. M/s.S.V.Motors accounts for Ex.C5. As such, the complainant was entitled for the amount of Rs.4,14,066/- towards the loss occasioned to the vehicle on account of the accident in dispute. But since the Opposite Party also impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant when they stated to have paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to Indusind Bank with which the vehicle in dispute was hypothecated. Once the Opposite Party state that they have made  part payment, their liability to pay the balance claim amount stands further fortified. Since the total liability for insurance claim has been pegged at Rs.4,14,066/- and after adjusting Rs.1,75,000/- part payment, the remaining liability comes out to be Rs.2,41,066/-  (Rs.4,16,066/- minus Rs. 1,75,000/-), which the Opposite Party is legally bound to pay to the complainant.

9.       Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,41,066/- to the complainant. The Opposite Party shall also pay compensation to the complainant which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- while the costs of complaint are assessed at Rs.2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the order executed through indulgence of this Forum.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 09.09.2016.