Complainant Tarlok Singh through the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of entire insured amount of Rs.7,40,600/- qua his claim immediately in terms of the insurance policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of incident till actual realization. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Truck LPT 2515 Turbo FBI bearing registration no.PB-02-AZ-6567 for the purpose of earning his livelihood and for his dependent family members and financed the same by Shri Ram Transport Finance Company, Pathankot. The abovesaid truck was fully insured with the opposite parties. He paid Rs.33,782/- on 23.5.2014 to the opposite party no.1 through its representatives at Gurdaspur and he assured that his vehicle has been insured. Now the Gurdaspur branch office of the opposite parties has been closed and merged into opposite party no.2. Though he paid premium for insurance of his vehicle on 23.5.2014 and his vehicle was also inspected by the representative of the opposite parties on the same day, but when insurance cover was supplied to him, period of insurance was mentioned from 12:00 26.05.2014 to 25.05.2015 midnight, whereas he paid premium on 23.5.2014 and his vehicle was also inspected on the same day and insurance policy was liable to be issued from 23.5.2014. He has further pleaded that on the intervening night of the 24/25.5.2014 he was going to Sri Nagar from Dinanagar for delivering rice of FCI, his son Karamjit who was employed as Cleaner in the truck was also sitting with him. When he reached a little behind of pucca Road of village Akalma, smoke started coming from the Engine all of sudden and wiring of the truck started sparking and flames of fire started coming out from the truck. He and his son tried their level best to put off the fire, but all in vain and truck turned into Ashes within no time and total loss of the vehicle was assessed. This fire broke out on account of short circuit in wiring and there was no fault on his part. 325 bags of Rice weighing about 16 Ton also burnt in this fire. He informed the opposite parties about this accident and opposite parties deputed their surveyor who visited the spot and assessed the loss as Total Loss. Thereafter he submitted his claim to the opposite parties as per rules. But to his utter surprise, a few days back he received summons in complaint titled Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.Vs.Tarok Singh filed under section 138 of N.I.Act in the court of Ms.Manpreet Kaur JMIC Gurdaspur and on inquiry it transpired that the opposite parties have not paid the amount of his claim to Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties and asked reason behind non payment to the abovesaid finance but the opposite parties put the matter pending with one or the other excuse and ultimately orally refused to make the payment of loss suffered by him on false and baseless observations that the insurance has been commenced from 12:00 26.05.2014. Although he paid premium for insurance of his vehicle on 23.5.2014 and the vehicle was also inspected by the representative of the opposite parties on 23.5.2014. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no privity of contract between the parties at the time of loss; the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, It was specifically denied that the complainant paid Rs.33,782/- on 23.5.2014 to the opposite party no.1 through its representative at Gurdaspur, where the office of opposite party no.1 was situated at that time. It was also denied that the representative of the opposite party also personally seen the truck of the complainant on the same day and accepted the premium after physically seen the vehicle. All other pleadings made in the complaint have also been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Karan Nangla authorized signatory Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/ evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the complainant’s fire-accident total-loss claim’s oral-repudiation by the OP insurers alleging ‘no-privity of contract’ between the present parties to the dispute. The OP insurers have admitted the factum of complainant’s vehicle-insurance with them but with effect from 26.05.2014 (12:00 noon) whereas the total-loss insurance claim pertains to the fire-accident occurring on the night of 24/25-05.2014 i.e., prior to the ‘existence’ of insurance.

7.       However, we find that the OP insurers have somehow preferred to produce only the one ‘lone’ affidavit of its authorized signatory Karan Nangla denying therein that the then representative at its Gurdaspur office was paid Rs.33,782/- on 23.04.2014 as the vehicle’s insurance premium by the complainant and who in turn was also assured that his vehicle stood insured with effect from 23.05.2015, itself. However, we find from (Ex.C2) the policy document that Manpreet Singh (Agency code 9900541) had managed/handled the issuance of the ‘insurance’ in question and his ‘version/statement’ has been somehow not-produced on the records. Moreover, it has not been the case of the OP insurers that Manpreet Singh Agent has left (not available) or has connived with the complainant or for some other cogent reason, his version could not be placed forth. Any other person cannot legally/reliably depose on behalf of another individual. 

8.       We further find that the present complainant has not been able to prove his ‘payment’ of insurance premium to the OP insurer’s agent/representative on 23.05.2014 through some ‘direct-evidence’ but somehow the available ‘circumstantial-evidence’ decidedly tilts in his favor. As per the police DDR (Ex.C3/Ex.C4) dated 25.05.2014 (02:00 AM) and also the Fire Report (Ex.C5) the Vehicle in question was reduced to ashes (total-loss) on the night of 24.05.2014 (around midnight or so) thus it could not have been logically inspected and insured on 26.05.2014 as per the insurance policy Ex.C2. Moreover, in the absence of any cogent ‘rebuttal’ evidence (for all practical purposes) the complainant’s version of premium payment on 23.05.2014 shall be relied upon. Thus, it shall be considered a lapse on the part of the OP insurers that the insurance policy was issued with effect from 26.05.2014 (12:00) whereas the insurance premium stood paid in cash to its local representative at Gurdaspur on 23.05.2014 to which the policy shall stand pre-dated. Lastly, the complainant shall not be entitled to any cost and compensation here since he also contributed to the ‘situation’ by way of his non-insistence rather ‘acquiescence’ to non-issuance of insurance policy cover on 23.05.2014 (there and then) upon payment of the related insurance premium.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay the impugned insurance total-loss claim in full (but duly limited by the terms of the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment. The parties here shall bear their costs for the above discussed reason(s).  

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

October 07, 2016.                                                            Member.

*MK*