Haryana

Panchkula

CC/206/2018

SATPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PARVINDER SINGH

15 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                              

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	206 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	05.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	15.07.2021

 

 

Satpal Singh, S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh(Since Deceased) through his LR’s

1. Jasmer Kaur aged 81 years, (Mother)
2. Sukhjeet Kaur aged 39 years, (Wife)
3. Parneet Singh aged 15 years(minor son) through his mother Sukhjeet Kaur as Guardian, All residents of Village Harpalan, Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala(Punjab).

 

                                                                                   ….Complainants

Versus

1.      Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd, India Bulls Finance Centre, Tower 3, 6^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone(W), Mumbai through its General Manager.

2.      The Branch Manager Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-354, 2^nd Floor, Above Domino’s Pizza, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109

3.      Velocity Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Near Jandli Brige, NH-1, G.T.Road, Ambala City through its General Manager.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Sh. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                           Sh. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                           Sh. S.R.Bansal, Advocate for the OP No.3.

ORDER

(Sh. Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that Sh.Satpal Singh, who has expired on 17.06.2017, was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no.PB-11-BF-1103 mark Volkswagen Polo. Sh.Satpal Singh (hereinafter referred/called as deceased) has purchased the insurance policy of his vehicle bearing no.PB 11 BF 1103 mark Volkswagen Polo from the Ops vide policy no. V 24 56368 which was valid from 13.06.2013 to 12.06.2014 and total premium of the insurance policy was Rs.13,464/- which was paid by Satpal Singh to the OP No.2. On 01.05.2014, the vehicle  was met with an accident and the loss has occurred to the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,94,048/- vide invoice no.SIP 121274 and the payment of the same was made (deceased) to OP No.3 vide receipt no.7451 dated 13.02.2016 for an amount of Rs.1,84,050/- and vide receipt no.7402 dated 13.02.2016 for an amount of Rs,10,000/- respectively and the same was surveyed by the official of the Ops. Thereafter, Sh. Satpal Singh approached the OP No.2 and the claim of the same was filed before the OP No.2 and Sh. Satpal Singh asked about the formalities of the claim at which they told that his claim will not be given as the vehicle in question was found involved in the FIR no.85 dated 30.04.2014 u/s 363, 366-A, 120B IPC at PS Mullana. The complainant (deceased) many times requested that the said FIR is totally false and he was acquitted in the said FIR from the Court of Sh. Narender Shura, ADJ Ambala vide judgment dated 13.07.2016 and the vehicle was ordered to be released after the acquittal of Satpal Singh and the same was repaired and the cash payment was made through receipts mentioned above. On 09.09.2016, the Op has given notice to the complainant (deceased) vide which OP rejected the claim of the complainant which is arbitrarily and illegally and therefore the complainant(deceased) through his counsel has replied on dated 28.10.2016. Further, it has come in the investigation of OP No.2 that the vehicle in question was totally damaged and therefore, the OP No.2 time and again starting lingering in releasing  the claim on one pretext or the other but they have not released  the amount of claim of complainant till date. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainants have suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint. Prejudice

2.               Upon notice, OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being frivolous and baseless; no cause of action; no jurisdiction and the complainants have not come with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the claim was lodged with the Ops for the damages of the vehicle as date of accident 01.05.2014 by the complainant. The Ops appointed the IRDA approved surveyor Arora Associates to assess the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor sent the letter dated 07.06.2014 and demanded few documents to process the claim. Further, another letter was sent on 18.08.2014 to provide the document. Again sent the letter dated 14.10.2014 and 10.11.2014 as reminder to provide the documents to process the claim but the same was not provided. Later, on 26.11.2014, the surveyor submitted the survey report that stated that even after several reminders insured was unable to shift the vehicle to repairer workshop. Finally, with no other option, on 09.12.2014 claim was repudiated on the ground that due to non compliance of the documents, claim is not payable. On 20.02.2016, claim form was submitted by the insured with date of loss as 30.04.2014. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 again appointed a surveyor to assess the loss as per terms and conditions of the policy. The Ops sent a letter dated 10.08.2016 to provide the documents. Later on, FIR and charge-sheet were provided by the representative of the complainant. As per scrutiny of received above said documents, the OP Nos.1 & 2 observed the following:-

         1.      That subject vehicle has released by Court on superdari which was impound by police in FIR No.85 dated 30.04.2014 with IPC 363,366-A, 120-B at P.S.Mullana Distt. Ambala. But as per claim intimation, claim form & request letters submitted by the complainant, showing date of loss was 01.05.2014.

         2.      As per chargesheet copy, we have not found that subject vehicle was in accidental conditional while taken in custody by Police against said FIR.

         3.      Apart from above, said vehicle had been impounded by Police due to involvement in unlawful activity while vehicle was booked by police on the behalf of Protection of children from Sexual offence Act, 2012, because of Kidnapped prosecutrix minor on pretext of marriage by Regd. Owner of vehicle Sh.Satpal Singh.

                  Therefore, claim was repudiated vide letter dated 09.09.2016 as per terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                  Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being frivolous and baseless; the complainant is not a consumer and no jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the OP No.3 has acted as service provider for accidental claim and delivered the vehicle after making payment to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and as such no liability was claimed against them nor any liability because the complainant was claiming the accidental amount from OP Nos. 1 & 2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               The learned counsel for the complainants has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/7 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP No.3 by making a separate statement states that the written statement may kindly be read as evidence and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2 filed by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record minutely and carefully.

                  During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted copy of letter dated 04.05.2014 in support of his contention, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

5.               In the present complaint, the indemnification of the losses caused to the insured car bearing vehicle no. PB 11 BF 1103 in an accident in front of Shri Laxmi Narayan Dham, Mohri has been prayed. Admittedly, the accident had occurred during the subsistence of the insurance policy valid from 13.06.2013 to 12.06.2014. The place of accident though not explicitly admitted by the Ops, yet, there is no serious dispute about the place of accident. The Ops No. 1 & 2 initially deputed Sh.Amarjeet Singh for Arora Associates, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, to assess the loss, who inspected the above accidental insured vehicle in police station, Mullana, Ambala on 05.06.2014 and submitted his final report to the Ops assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.85,775/-. Thereafter, Sh.Gotam Narayan, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who was deputed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss, inspected the vehicle and assess to the loss to the tune of Rs.1,30,522/-. However, after seeking certain documents i.e. repair, estimate, FIR, charge-sheet etc., the claim was ultimately rejected vide letter dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure C-6) on the following grounds:

1. That subject vehicle has released by court on supardari which was impound by police in FIR No.85 dated 30.04.2014 with IPC 363, 366A-120B at PS Mullana District Ambala. But as per claim intimation, claim form & request letters submitted by you, showing dated of loss is 01.05.2014.

2. As per Chargesheet copy; we have not found that subject vehicle was in accidental condition while taken in custody by police against said FIR.

3. Apart from above, said vehicle had been impounded by police due to involvement of said vehicle in Unlawful Activity while vehicle was booked by police on the behalf of Protection of Children from Sexual offenses Act 2012, because of Kidnapped prosecutrix minor on pretext of marriage by Regd Owner of vehicle Mr. Satpal.

 

Apart from contesting the complaint on merits, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of delay and in this regard, placed reliance on the order dated 05.09.2013 The contentions of the learned counsel is not acceptable to us as the claim was ultimately declined by the OP on 07.11.2016 vide its letter dated 07.11.2016(Annexure C-10) and the present complaint has been filed on 05.11.2018 i.e. within two years from the said date and thus, the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

 

6.               Now, we take up the above grounds as taken by the OPs in the repudiation letter dated 07.11.2016 for discussion in the same seriatim:-

          As per ground mentioned at serial no.1, the above vehicle in question was taken in police custody by police in FIR no.85 dated 30.04.2014 whereas, the date of accident as conveyed by the complainant was 01.05.2014 and thus, it has been contended by the Ops that it is material difference with regard to the date of accident. We completely differ with the OPs in so far as the date of accident is concerned because both the surveyors vide their separate surveyor report Annexure R1/3 & R1/7 has reported the date of accident as 01.05.2014 & 30.04.2014. None of the surveyor deputed by the Ops No.1 & 2 has doubted the genuineness of the claim while submitting their separate surveyor report. Sh.Gotam Narayan Surveyor and loss assessor vide his surveyor report dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure R1/7) has categorically observed that the damages were accidental in nature and accordance with the site of accident. Moreover, the contention of the Ops No.1 & 2 that accidental vehicle in question was taken by the police in its custody on 30.04.2014 is not based on any cogent and credible documentary evidence. The recovery memo dated 04.05.2014 Mark ‘A’ vide which the accidental vehicle was taken by the police in its custody in the aforesaid police case clearly negates and nullifies  the assertion of the OPs No.1 & 2.

2^nd ground:-

         The second objection stands negated and nullified, in view of the recitals contained in the recovery memo dated 04.05.2014 MarK ‘A’ which clearly shows that the vehicle in question was taken by the police in its custody in accidental condition. Moreover, HC, Shish Pal PW-8 and Investigating Officer, Sh. Rajinder Singh PW-15 as per Para No.13 and 22 of the judgment dated 13.07.2016 passed in the said FIR have categorically stated that  the vehicle in question was taken by the police in its custody in accidental condition.

3^rd ground:-

         The third objection has no merits and is rejected in view of the facts that the accused Satpal Singh who is now deceased was acquitted of the charges leveled against him by the learned court of Sh.Narender Sura, ADJ, Ambala vide his judgment dated 13.07.2016 in the said FIR(Annexure C-11).

7.               In view of the aforementioned discussion, we find no merits in the repudiation letter dated 09.09.2016 rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant. At this juncture, we deem it proper to mention here that no litigant/consumer approaches the court/Tribunal out of his choice but is compelled to invoke jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunal only when he gets no adequate redressal of his grievances. Therefore, we conclude that there has been gross deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.               We agree with the contention of OP No.3 that it has only repaired the vehicle in question and thus, there was no lapse and deficiency on its part. Hence, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3.

9.               In relief, the complainant has claimed the reimbursement of a sum of Rs.1,94,048/- alongwith 18% per annum interest as repair charges of the accidental car. Apart from it, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and sum of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation charges has also been claimed from the OPs. The surveyor report dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure R1/7) is not disputed; hence, we deem it appropriate to award the reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 1,30,522/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant.

10.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1,30,522/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant w.e.f. from filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- as litigation charges.

 

11.             The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OP No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:15.07.2021

 

Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal        

             Member                        Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                     Satpal,                         

President