BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.66/16.
Date of instt.: 09.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 03.01.2017.
Sukhvinder Singh S/o Sh. Laxman Singh, R/o VPO Bakal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office, Iffco Sadan C1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
- Branch Office, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
- Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited 5C/1, Sheetal Complex Ground Floor Rajbaha Road, Patiala Punjab-147001.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.S.Gill, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR08M/2516 with the Ops vide policy No.87853152 valid w.e.f. 28.05.2014 to 27.05.2015. It is alleged that on 24.07.2014 the above-said vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident, there was total loss of the vehicle. Information regarding accident was given to Ops. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is pre-mature; that the answering Ops have not repudiated or accepted any claim till date as no intimation about the alleged loss was ever received in the office of answering Ops; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the loss, if any was to be reported to the insurance company immediately so that the proper investigation may be done and matter be settle but in the present case, no intimation was ever received in the office of answering Ops, which is the prime condition under the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of complainant was closed vide court order dt. 03.08.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 20.09.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No.HR08M/2516 with the Ops vide policy No.87853152 valid w.e.f. 28.05.2014 to 27.05.2015. He further argued that on 24.07.2014 the above-said vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident, there was total loss of the vehicle. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the loss, if any was to be reported to the insurance company immediately so that the proper investigation may be done and matter be settle but in the present case, no intimation was ever received in the office of Ops, which is the prime condition under the policy.
6. From the pleadings and evidence available on the file, we found that the main dispute between the parties is that as per complainant, he lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the same, whereas as per Ops, no intimation was ever received in the office of Ops and to prove the same, elaborate evidence is required, which is not possible in this time-bound proceedings. The Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. In case titled as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB reported in 1998(1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly and the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.03.01.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
