Punjab

StateCommission

FA/964/2013

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harshit Jain

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.   964 of 2013

                                                           

                                     Date of institution:  4.9.2013   

                             Date of Decision:  27.2.2015

 

Gurcharan Singh s/o Dhanna Singh r/o Village Loha Khera, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Ground Floor, Seetal Complex, S-C/1, Near National Nursery, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Harshit Jain, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Sh. G.D. Gupta, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No. 496 dated 30.10.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondent/opposite party(hereinafter referred as ‘the OP’)  on the allegations that being owner of Alto K-10 car bearing registration No. PB-13Y-1129, engine No. 4192975, chassis No. 160889 was insured with the OP vide cover note No. 72981177 dated 28.12.2011 for a total sum insured of Rs. 2,64,406/-. He had taken the car to Shamsher Washing Centre, Longowal, which was not in a working order and the complainant moved back to take his car from Washing Ramp and suddenly, the said car caught fire and car was totally damaged. He lodged DDR No. 23 dated 7.3.2012 with P.S. Longowal and also gave intimation to the OP. The claim was lodged with the OP. The documents demanded by the Ops were supplied. They appointed the Investigator, however, the Ops delayed the claim on one pretext or the other. Then he sent a legal notice dated 25.8.2012 to pay the claim but the Ops did not filed any reply to the said notice, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Op. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Op to pay IDV of the Car of Rs. 2,64,406/- and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. Litigation expenses be also paid.

3.                Complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking legal objections that the complaint was not maintainable. The allegations alleged in the complaint were totally false and frivolous. The complainant never lodged any claim with the Op, therefore, it had no appraisal to verify the said claim. The complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint filed by the complainant was false, frivolous and vexatious to his knowledge, therefore, it be liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs. 50,000/-. On merits, it was denied that car bearing No. PB-13Y-1129 had caught fire on 16.3.2012 near Shamsher Washing Centre, Longowal. It was denied that the car was totally damaged. Since the complainant had not lodged the claim with the OP and did not submit the documents, therefore, the Ops did not have a change to process the claim. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence cover note Ex. C-1, DDR Ex. C-2, legal notice Ex. C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4, report of Investigator Ex. C-5, reply to letter dated 21.6.12 with postal receipts Exs. C-6 to C-8, affidavit Ex. C-9, affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-10. On the other hand, the opposite party did not tender any evidence and closed the same vide order dated 19.6.2013.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.

7.                The first point for consideration is whether any claim was filed by the complainant with the Ops after the incident in which the car of the complainant was damaged. Although in the complaint, it has been referred by the complainant that the claim was lodged but the Ops have denied this fact in their written statement. On the record the complainant has placed on the record, cover note, DDR, legal notice and reply received from the OP Company, reply sent to the Advocate of the Company alongwith affidavit. No document with regard to the lodging of the claim with the Ops has been filed on the record and without lodging the claim, the Ops had no chance to process the claim, therefore, it will be appropriate in case directions are given to the complainant to lodge the claim and after that the OP Company will process the same according to the terms and conditions of the policy and decide the claim.

8.                In view of the above order so passed by the learned District Forum was not justified to dismiss the complaint with having the knowledge that no such claim was filed with the Op and Op had no chance to process the claim.

9.                In view of the above, we accept the appeal, set-aside the order passed by the learned District Forum. The complainant is directed to lodge his claim within a period of 15 days after the receipt of the order from this Commission and OPs on receipt of the claim lodged by the complainant, will process the claim within a period of two months. In case the complainant is not satisfied then he will have a liberty to file the fresh complaint.

10.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

February 27, 2015.                                                    (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                Member