BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.120 of 2017
Date of Instt. 27.04.2017
Date of Decision: 19.12.2018
Gurteshwar Singh, Age 31 years, Son of S. Satinder Singh, R/o VPO Nurpur, Jalandhar Mob No.9914605599.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. 3rd Floor, Eminant Mall, 261 Lajpat Nagar, Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar-144001 Through its Branch Manager/Director/Authorized Representative.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. HDFC House, 165- 166, 1st Floor, Backbay Reclamation, H. T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharastra 400020 Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OPs.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is owner of the vehicle bearing No.PB-08-CG(T) 9673, Make: Ashoka Layland-2518. The above said vehicle is insured with OPs, vide policy No.06601212353 for the period from 26.07.2016 to 25.07.2017. The OPs received from complainant the sum of Rs.48,350/- as premium for making the full insurance of above said vehicle for any kind of loss, damage, theft, fire and accident.
2. That unfortunately, the above said vehicle was met with an accident at about 03:00 PM on 31.07.2016 at Village Kotli, Near Cremation Ground, while saving a stray animal. An FIR in this regard was lodged in P. S. Kanwan, District Pathankot. In the above said accident, the Chassis, Loading Box, Front Axle, Cabin, Tipping Jack etc. totally damaged, which caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,88,492/-. The Surveyor was also appointed to made a report. All the documents along with claim form, repair bills were submitted to the OPs in time. However, the original documents which the complainant produced before OPs were not accepted. As per verbal direction of the OP No.1, the complainant got repaired the above said vehicle from certain workshops namely Avtar Automobiles, Basra Sales Corporation, Jyoti Truck Body Builders, Dara Singh Auto Workshop and Aryan International. The complainant paid the amount to said workshops as per their bill from his own pocket.
3. That the vehicle was newly purchased for which above mentioned temporary registration number was allotted by the DTO Jalandhar. In view to get permanent registration certificate and permit, the complainant deposited the Permit fees and RC fees with DTO, Jalandhar, but before issuance the RC etc. the said vehicle met with an accident unfortunately. The complainant requested the OPs many times to give the claim of above said accidental vehicle, but the OPs ignored and refused to give the claim, which tantamount to unfair trade practice and amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thereafter, registered letter was also sent to the complainant, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay claim of Rs.2,88,492/- and further to give the cost of Rs.3300/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental tension and harassment.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and further alleged that the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature in nature as the claim of the complainant was closed, since the mandatory documents required in order to process the claim was not submitted by the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. The complainant failed to submit the requisite documents before the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured the vehicle in question and also admitted that the complainant submitted an insurance claim, but the same is still pending for want of documents . The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn two affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Manager (Legal) as Ex.OA and affidavit of Sanjiv Khanna, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Ex.OB along with documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-7 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the complainant in person as well as the learned counsel for the OPs and also scanned the file very minutely.
8. Before going on merit of the complaint, we prefer to take first of all the plea taken by the OPs that the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature in nature as the complainant himself miserably failed to submit the required/demanded documents to the OPs and due to that reason, the OPs could not able to decide the insurance claim of the complainant, which is still pending and the same was formally closed. In order to establish that the OP has demanded documents from the complainant, the OP has brought on the file two letters dated 05.08.2016 and 30.08.2016 Ex.O-3 & Ex.O-4 respectively, whereby numerous documents were called from the complainant, but the complainant in order to rebut these documents, has failed to bring on the file even iota of evidence to show that he has submitted the demanded documents, if so, in what manner and thereafter, the OP closed the insurance claim of the complainant, vide letter Ex.O-5 by giving a reason that the complainant himself failed to submit the documents, which are necessary for the settlement of the claim.
9. So, from the above detailed discussion, it is established that the insurance claim of the complainant has not been decided by the OP in either way and if so, then no cause accrued to the complainant to file the instant complaint rather the complainant is required to firstly submitted the document and thereafter, the insurance claim of the complainant will be considered by OPd and decide the same and whatsoever the result of the same and then cause of action will accrue to the complainant. So, with these observations, we find it appropriate if a direction is to be given to the complainant to submit the required documents as mentioned in letter Ex.O-3 and Ex.O-4, to the OP and thereafter, the OP will decide insurance claim of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the document and if the OP failed to decide the insurance claim within above stipulated period, then the OP will liable to compensate the complainant by paying a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. After the settlement of the claim by the OPs, the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint if he will not satisfy with the insurance settlement claim by the OPs. So, accordingly, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
19.12.2018 Member President
