BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 739 of 31.8.2010

                                                Decided on:          23.8.2011

Jaspal Kaur aged about 45, years wife of Late Heera Singh, resident of village Aloarkh,Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

2.                 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Chhoti Baradari, Backside Narian Continental, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.S.P.Singh , Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.Dhiraj Puri , Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          Late Heera Singh, husband of the complainant had got truck bearing registration No,PB 13R-6567 insured with the op vide cover note no.51802607 for the period 17.5.2007 to 16.5.2008, the value of the truck having been declared as Rs.13lacs by the ops.

2.       On 22.9.2008, late Heera Singh alongwith his son Daljit Singh had been coming from Madras by loading the glass in the truck for Srinagar via Tamilnadu-Andhra Pardesh – Maharashtra - M.P.- Rajasthan – Haryana -Punjab-J&K.The truck was being driven by Heera Singh. On the intervening night of 24/25.9.2008 at about 3:30PM when they reached near Wadi Shivar Petrol Pump on Nasik to Nagpur Highway situated on NH-6 within the jurisdiction of Naduran Police Station that the lights of a vehicle coming from opposite side had dashed into the eyes of the deceased and therefore, he could not control the truck and could not see truck no.CG-04JA-1808 wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being on or any other indication and therefore, the truck of the deceased had hit against the aforesaid truck no.CG-04JA-1808.The truck of the deceased was badly damaged. The deceased had suffered grievous injuries but who lateron succumbed to the same.

3.       Intimation regarding the accident was given to op no.2, who had appointed the surveyor. The truck was got repaired at Indoor to be brought to Punjab by way of  having got the same toed for which the complainant spent Rs.30,000/- for repair and Rs.15000/- as toeing charges.

4.       It is further averred that the vehicle was parked at Bansal Automobiles ,Patran, an authorized dealer of Tata Motors, under the instructions of the surveyor and the complainant spent Rs.2,50,000/- for getting the vehicle repaired. She spent Rs.2,95,000/- on the repair of the truck.

5.       The complainant submitted all the documents alongwith bill with the ops but despite the passing of about  four months, the ops failed to release the claim. Ultimately in the month of April/2009, after the expiry of about six months  of the submission of the claim, the ops released an amount of Rs.63797/- as against the total amount of Rs.2,95000/-.

6.       After getting the cheque for the amount of Rs.1,63,797/- the complainant alongwith her son approached ops for making the payment of the balance amount who assured to pay the same within one month but they failed to pay till the filing of the complaint. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,31,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of the accident and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant at the hands of the ops and further to pay her Rs.5500/- as costs of the complaint.

7.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain legal objections, interalia, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed; that the Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint as no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant within the jurisdiction of the Forum and that the complainant has got no locus standai /cause of action to file the complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the ops that the truck was insured with the op,the IDV of the same having been declared as Rs.13lacs by the Late Heera Singh.

8.       It is further averred that after getting information regarding the accident, the ops had deputed the surveyor who submitted the report having assessed the loss at Rs.1,63,797/- which is found payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the said payment was duly received by the complainant without any protest. It is denied if the complainant had spent Rs.2,95,000/- on the repair of the truck. The bills produced by the complainant are forged and fabricated. It is denied if the complainant had parked the vehicle at Bansal Automobiles Patran. Similarly, it is denied if the complainant had spent Rs.30000/- for getting the vehicle repaired to be brought to Punjab and she spent Rs.15000/-as toeing charges. The complainant and her son had  never approached the ops after receipt of Rs.1,63,797/- in the month of April 2009.The present complaint has been filed in the month of December 2009 going to show that the amount of Rs.1,63,797/- was accepted without any protest and there was no deficiency on the part of the ops. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

9.       In support of her claim, the complainant produced in evidence her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith documents,Exs.C2 to C12 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

10.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Gurpreet Kaur Manager(Legal) of op no.1,Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of Satinder Pal Singh, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents,Exs.R3 toR5 and their learned counsel closed the evidence.

11.     The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

12.     It is the case of the complainant that she had to spend a sum of Rs.30,000/- for getting the truck No. PB 13R 6567 repaired for being brought to Punjab from the place of the accident and she also paid Rs.15000/- for getting the same toed. Similarly it is the case of the complainant that she had spent Rs.2,95,000/- for getting the truck repaired but the ops settled her claim in a sum of Rs.1,63,797/- .

13.     The complainant has produced, Exs. C4 to C6, the copies of the estimate obtained by the complainant from Bansal Auto Mobiles,Patran for Rs.1,66,566/-, Rs.32925/- and Rs.18075/- in respect of vehicle no.PB 13R 6567.Similarly she has produced, ExC7, the photo copy of bill no.917 dated nil obtained from Gill truck and bus body maker Samana  with regard to the cabinet and tool box and also the front wind sheet to have been got repaired for Rs.73,000/-.Similarly she has produced in evidence,Exs.C8 to C9, the copies of cash memos with regard to certain parts having been purchased from Multani Motors on 17.10.2008 for vehicle no.PB 13R 6567.Similarly she has produced,Ex.C10, the copy of the receipt for Rs.15000/- obtained from Dashmesh Crane Service in respect of vehicle No. PB 13R 6567 dated 13.9.2008 without disclosing the person from whom the payment was received as also the nature of the work done. Similarly, the complainant has produced the photo copies of the bills,Exs.C11 and C12 dated 17.10.2008 and 1`7.10.2008 obtained from Muneem Auto Garage and KBA Service Centre, there being no name of the person in whose favour the same was issued concerning vehicle no. PB 13R 6567. The complainant has not produced the affidavit of any person from whom she got the work of repair of the vehicle done and therefore, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the Forum should not accept the aforesaid estimates/bills particularly when the complainant has not stated about her having got the particular work done regarding the repair of the vehicle from a particular person.

14.     On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Dhiraj Puri, the learned counsel for the ops that on receipt of the information regarding the accident, the ops had appointed their surveyor and loss assessor namely Satinder pal Singh who had submitted his final survey report,Ex.R3 alongwith the assessment sheet,Ex.R4 having assessed the loss in a sum of Rs.1,63,797/- and which had accordingly been paid to the complainant.

15.     It was further submitted by Sh.Puri that there is no evidence to show that the payment of Rs.1,63,797/- was accepted by the complainant under any protest. No letter of protest was ever written by the complainant to the ops. Sh.Puri also placed reliance upon the citation Jain Invest and Lease Finance Private Limited Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2010(3)CLT 293 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the observation that , “ the mere receipt from some spare parts dealer will, therefore, not support his case as it is not difficult for any person to obtain a receipt of this nature to make out a case”. It was also submitted by Sh.Puri that the ops have got proved the final survey report,Ex.R3, having produced in evidence Ex.R2, the sworn affidavit of the surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Satinder Pal Singh.

16.     We have examined the matter at length and find that in the light of the final survey report,Ex.R3, duly got proved by the ops from the surveyor and loss assessor Mr.Satinder Pal Singh , there being no cogent and convincing evidence to have been led by the complainant that she ever got the work of  repair of the vehicle done by Bansal Auto Mobiles,Patran Gill Truck & Bus body maker, Samana, Multani Motors Indore, it is not possible for us to accept the photo copies of the estimates/bills especially when in the receipt,Ex.C10, it is not shown from whom an amount of Rs.15000/- was obtained and from what particular place the vehicle No. PB 13R 6567 was toed. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:23.8.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President