Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/232

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Farid Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan kumar Tayal

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :             232 of 2017

Date of Institution:    17.07.2017

Date of Decision :       3.04.2019

 

Rajinder Kumar aged about 40 years, son of Surjan Dass, r/o Near Regar Basti, Bijli Office, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Farid Service Station situated at Ferozepur Road, Opposite New Sabzi Mandi, Faridkot through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, having its Branch Office near Mori Gate Chowk, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple,  Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3.

 

 

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim  and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration no. PB04-7524, which was fully insured with OP-2 and 3 vide Insurance Policy bearing no. 3005/28788274/10012/000 valid from 31.08.2015 to 30.08.2016. Complainant purchased the said insurance policy of OP-2 and OP-3 through OP-1 agent of Op-2 and 3 and paid Rs.1440/-as premium and OPs assured to pay the claim in case of any damage. It is submitted that on 28.04.2016, vehicle of complainant met with an accident and FIR no.34 dated 28.04.2016 to this effect was registered under Section 279/304-A, 427 IPC at Police Station, Jaitu on same day. In said accident real nephew of complainant died and  complainant got released the vehicle in question form Court on Sapurdari  and intimation regarding said accident was duly provided to OPs alongwith requisite documents. It is further submitted that OP-1 took in possession damaged

 

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

vehicle of complainant. Thereafter, Ops appointed a Surveyor who conducted survey and took photographs of damaged vehicle. Complainant also furnished requisite documents to him for processing the insurance claim. Said Surveyor assured complainant that his claim would be processed soon. Complainant completed all formalities and also submitted estimate bill dated 28.12.2016 to Ranjit Singh Customer Service Manager of OP-2 and Op-3 but he was shocked to receive a message that his claim has been stopped on account of non submission of documents. Thereafter, complainant approached Ops several times, but they kept putting him off on one pretext or the other and kept sending him from one official to another, but did not do anything needful. Complainant sent e-mails to Ops, but they did not bother to hear his genuine requests. Even legal notice dated 22.03.2017 served by complainant through his counsel to Ops also bore no fruit. All this caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                          The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.07.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that no cause of action  arises against them and he has no locus standi to the file present complaint. However on merits, OP-1 admitted before the Forum that motorcycle owned by complainant was insured with OP-2 and Op-3 through them. it is also admitted that damaged vehicle was brought to OP-1 and it is in their possession. It is further submitted that after completing all the formalities, he lodged the claim with insurer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary proceedings of this Forum. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as he did not give the due intimation regarding alleged accident to them in time due to which spot survey could not be got conducted to assess the loss. Vide letter dated 27.12.2016 and 7.12.2016, answering Ops asked him to submit requisite documents and give reason for causing delay in giving intimation regarding alleged accident, but he did not give any reply. Complainant is not the consumer of Ops and he has no locus  standi to

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

file the present complaint. As per terms and conditions of the policy in question, they have every right to decide the claim. On merits, OP-2 and OP-3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that policy in question was issued by them and he paid premium regarding said policy. It is averred that alleged accident occurred on 28.04.2016, but intimation regarding same was given to them on 2.09.2016 after a long period of 4 months, due to which they could not get conducted spot survey to assess the loss. It is further averred that complainant did not submit sale order from court. Complainant neither submitted any requisite document nor furnished detailed estimate to them. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pankaj Gulati  Ex OP-1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1. Ld counsel for OP- and OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Apurva

 

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

Sharma Ex OP-2, 3/1 and documents Ex OP-2,3/2 to Ex OP-2,3/9 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

8                                                        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the record file.

 9                                             From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant purchased the policy in question of OP-2 and 3 from OP-1 their agent and got insured his vehicle against all kinds of risks. During the subsistence of policy period, vehicle of complainant met with an accident. In said accident, nephew of complainant died away and his vehicle was also badly damaged. FIR to this effect was got recorded to Police and due intimation regarding it was also given to OPs. Complainant completed all formalities and furnished requisite documents including detailed estimate of bill, but OPs did not pass his genuine insurance claim on account of accident of his motorcycle, rather kept sending him from one official to other and did not do anything needful. Even e-mails sent by complainant and legal notice served by him bore no fruit. All this caused harassment to him and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OP-1 denied all the allegations of complainant regarding harassment but admitted before the Forum that complainant gave intimation regarding accident to him and OP-1 took the vehicle of

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

complainant in his own possession. Stand of OP-1 that on receiving intimation from complainant regarding said accident, he completed all the requisite formalities and furnished all the required documents to OP-2 and 3 for processing the claim of complainant. As per OP-1 there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the contrary OP-2 and OP-3 denied that they received any document from complainant and asserted that complainant did not give information regarding said accident to them in time. Accident occurred on 28.04.2016, but they received information after a period of four months on 2.09.2016. OPs also averred that they issued two letter to complainant dated 7.12.2016 and 27.12.2016 vide which they asked complainant to furnish requisite documents and give reason for causing delay in giving information regarding said accident to them, to which complainant did not respond. OP-2 and OP-3 admitted that as per rules and regulation of policy in question they have rightly closed the claim of complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

10                                         To prove his pleadings, complainant brought our attention towards policy document Ex C-3 that reveals that vehicle of complainant was insured with OP-2 and 3. Ex C-4 is the copy of correspondence occurred between complainant and OP-2 and OP-3 which clearly depicts that they kept sending the complainant from their one official to other as vide letter dt 15.02.2017 they advised

cc  no. 232 of 2017

complainant to submit documents to Manager Ranjit Singh, but vide letter dated 11.03.2017 they asked complainant to New Manager Komal and was further asked to see Jagjit Singh. ExC-6 is copy of FIR which further proves the pleadings of complainant regarding said accident. legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel reiterates his  grievance. Ex C-11 is detailed estimate showing damage caused to his vehicle.

 11                                      There is no dispute that accident occurred on 28.04.2016 and it is also admitted by all the OPs that intimation regarding said accident was given to them. Now, grievance of the complainant is that though he completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents alongwith detailed estimate bill to OPs, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally closed his claim without any reason. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-2 and 3 is that complainant gave intimation regarding said accident to them after a long period of 4 months and caused hindrance in conducting spot survey to assess the loss and even despite issuance of letters to complainant, he did not submit requisite documents to them. Plea taken by OP-2 and Op-3 that complainant did not submit them detailed estimate has no legs to stand upon in the light of documents Ex C-4, Ex C-5 and Ex C-11. Moreover, OP-1 has already admitted in written version that on receiving intimation regarding accident from complainant, he completed all formalities and sent all the required documents to Insurer for processing the claim of complainant.

 

cc  no. 232 of 2017

 

12                                            From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and OP-3 in not clearing the claim of complainant. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his grievance and authenticity of these documents is beyond any doubt. Complainant has successfully proved his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP-2 and OP-3 are directed to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.36,317/-on account of damage of his vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OP-2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 3.04.2019         

 

(Parampal Kaur)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

           Member                                   President