O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Admittedly, the complainant Surender Singh is the registered owner of truck No. HP-24B-6600 which was insured with the ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company vide insurance policy Annexure C-10 w.e.f. 17-09-2008 to 16-09-2009. The said vehicle met with an accident on 19-07-2009. The opposite parties were intimated accordingly. The opposite parties appointed Shri Romit Modi to conduct survey and assess the loss who accordingly conducted survey and assessed the loss vide report Annexure R-3 dated 02-08-2010 at Rupees 62,554/-, but the opposite parties did not pay the same.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay a sum of Rupees 2,35,000/- along with compensation of Rupees 25,000/- and cost of the complaint on the grounds that in spite of submitting of the requisite documents and completion of formalities the opposite parties have failed to settle the claim of the complainant and make payment of the same in spite of several requests made by him which amounts to deficiency in service due to which he has suffered harassment, monetary loss and mental tension.
3. The opposite parties have disputed the said claim and set up the defense that while processing the claim the opposite parties issued several reminders to the complainant to submit the documents including the Registration Certificate, Road Tax, ID Proof and copy of First Information Report which was essential for the settlement of the claim, but the complainant failed to submit those documents and therefore, the claim of the complainant was closed for want of documents and as such the complaint is not maintainable and the loss which has been assessed at Rupees 62,554/- has not been paid and as such the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. The opposite parties have taken up a specific defense that they sent several reminders to the complainant to submit the documents including Registration Certificate, Road Tax, ID proof and copy of First Information Report, but he failed to submit the requisite documents hence his claim was closed, but in the opinion of this Forum, the said defense has been taken by the opposite parties simply with the purpose to frustrate the claim of the complainant without any reason. The opposite parties along with reply have not filed even a single letter or reminder asking the complainant to submit the said documents. Had the opposite parties sent several reminders as claimed by them asking the complainant to submit the documents, those reminders could have been produced and proved in evidence, but the opposite parties have failed to prove those reminders and have only placed on record one letter dated 20-11-2009 on 20-01-2015, hence this Forum is bound to infer that the opposite parties have taken up a false defense. The opposite parties have failed to prove that the letter Annexure R-2 was ever received by the complainant. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide his report Annexure R-3 has considered and verified about the Registration Certificate, Route permit, ID proof , First Information Report and all other facts, hence there was no ground available with the opposite parties to close the claim of the complainant and the same has been closed without there being any cogent and legal ground, which amounts to deficiency in service.
5. Not to say only this, the opposite parties could have collected the above stated documents itself but they have failed to do so which also amounts to deficiency in service.
6. The opposite parties have also failed to rebut the claim of the complainant that he had supplied all the required documents and complied with the codal formalities, hence there was no reason for the opposite parties to close the claim of the complainant.
7. In view of the evidence discussed above, it stands fully and firmly established that the opposite parties have wrongly and illegally closed the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
8. The complainant has claimed his indemnification in sum of Rupees 2,35,000/- on the strength of cash memos Annexure C-1, to Annexure C-8, but the said claim is not supported by the affidavit of the persons who issued the said cash memos nor those have been proved on the basis of original cash memos. The complainant has failed to prove that loss assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor of Rupees 62,554/- is not correct and genuine or the said assessment has not been correctly made by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, as a result of which this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant was entitled to get Rupees 62,554/- but the opposite parties have failed to pay the same which amounts to deficiency in service.
9. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment and mental tension and monetary loss.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to make payment of Rupees 62,554/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21-04-2011 till the said amount is paid or realized. The opposite parties are also directed to pay punitive compensation of Rupees 5,000/- and cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 5,000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 21st day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
