DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 43 of 4.2.2016

                                      Decided on: 2.2.2021

Charna Singh son of Mohinder Singh resident of village Guram, Tehsil and District Barnala.

                                                          …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.1, Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Patiala.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New-Delhi through Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Rishab Kumar Jain, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Charna Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of the vehicle No.PB-13N-4711. The complainant got the said vehicle insured with the OPs through their agent Manju Rani for the IDV of Rs.7,50,000/- vide cover note No.83697771 for the period from 18.4.2013 to 17.4.2014 and paid Rs.33668/-as premium  to Manju Rani, the agent of the OPs. Lateron policy No.1-211KL9S was issued by the OPs.
3. It is averred that said vehicle met with an accident on 19.5.2013 in which the complainant was injured badly and was removed to Siddi Vinayak Hospital, Morbi, Gujarat by the people and authorities . Later on the complainant remained under the treatment of G.S.Hospital, Rampuraphul, District Bathinda.FIR No.38/13 dated 19.5.2013 was lodged with the police station Mallya. The intimation of loss was also given to OP no.1. After recovering from the injuries to some extent, the complainant after getting permission from authorities concerned got the trolla (ghora) portion of the vehicle shifted to Raikot and an estimate of loss was prepared from B.K.Motors, Raikot, who estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.9,49,731/-.The trolla portion is still lying at the Morbi.
4. It is further averred that the complainant submitted all the documents available with him to the OPs but the OPs did not pay any amount despite several requests made by the complainant.
5. It is averred that earlier the complainant filed consumer complaint No.40 of 19.2.2015 before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2015 for want  of jurisdiction. It is averred that during the course of this complaint the complainant came to know that the OPs closed the case for want of documents rather the same have been duly supplied to them but they failed to settle the claim and are depriving the complainant from the use of vehicle for a long period. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest @12.75% ; to pay Rs.1,00,000/-towards mental tension and harassment and also to pay Rs.22,000/-as costs of litigation.
6. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been declared as ‘No Claim’ due to non compliance of documents; that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.
7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question and got the same insured with the OPs with the sum assured of Rs.7,50,000/-.It is further submitted that on receipt of intimation of loss, the OPs immediately deputed IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor M/s IAR surveyor and loss assessor Pitmanpura, New Delhi for spot survey who submitted the report on 28.5.2013 but could not get the final survey done due to non supply of documents by the complainant and ultimately closed the claim of the complainant.It is submitted that the present complaint is premature as the complainant failed to supply the requisite documents for the settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs .After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In evidence the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C22 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld.counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sanket Gupta longwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
10. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is registered owner of the vehicle No.PB-13N-4711 and the said vehicle was insured with the OPs through their agent Manju Rani of Barnala for Rs.7,50,000/- for the period from 18.4.2013 to 17.4.2014 for which premium of Rs.33668/-was paid by the complainant to  Manju Rani at Barnala and also the OPs issued policy. The ld. counsel further argued that the vehicle met with an accident on 19.5.2013 in which the complainant badly injured and he was moved to Siddi Vinayak Hospital, Morbi, Gujarat by the people and authorities. Lateron he remained under the treatment of G.S.Hospital, Rampuraphul, District Bathinda. The ld. counsel further argued that FIR No.38/13 dated 19.5.2013 was lodged with the police station Mallya. The ld. counsel further argued that after recovering from the injuries to some extent and  after getting permission from authorities concerned he got the trolla (ghora) portion of the vehicle shifted to Raikot and an estimate of loss to the tune  of Rs. 9,49,731/- was prepared by B.K.Motors, Raikot.The trolla portion is still lying at the Morbi. The OPs issued him a letter to sent the documents and he sent all the documents. The ld. counsel  further argued that the complainant previously filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ld. counsel further argued that till now the OPs have not paid any amount and the complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that driving licnece of the driver Nath Singh was not supplied to insurance company despite various reminders. The ld. counsel further argued that on receipt of intimation of loss, OPs deputed IRDA approved surveyor and he had submitted the report. The ld. counsel further argued that the case was closed as the driving licence was never given to the insurance company, so the complaint be dismissed.
13. To prove this case, Charna Singh complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the certificate of fitness,Ex.C2 is certificate of registration, Ex.C3 is policy for Rs.7,50,000/-,Ex.C4 is permit,Ex.C5 is permit, Ex.C6 is record of Siddi Vinayak Hospital,Ex.C7 is record of indoor of said hospital, Ex.C8 is record of medical store of said hospital, Ex.C9 is also record, Ex.C10 copy of FIR,  it is in Gujrati Language, Ex.C11 is also FIR,Ex.C12 is statement in Gujrati Language,Ex.C13 is panchnama,Ex.C14 is the licnece of Nath Singh which is valid till 25.8.2014,Ex.C16 is the letter written by OPs to complainant,Ex.C17 is scrutiny sheet in which it is mentioned that the claim be closed due to non compliance, Ex.C18 is letter of Iffco Tokio,Ex.C19 is letter of IffcoTokio,Ex.C20 is letter of Iffco Tokio,Ex.C21 is motor final survey report,Ex.C22 is the judgment passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, the case was filed by Charna Singh and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and it was mentioned in the last para that the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint in the competent Forum, if so desired as per law.So it is clear that the permission was granted to Charna Singh to file a fresh complaint in the proper Forum.So he has filed the present complaint.
14. To rebut the case the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sanket Gupta, authorized signatory of OPs and he has deposed as per his written statement, Ex.OP1 is letter written to complainant,Ex.OP2 is letter written to complainant,Ex.OP3 and OP4 are  also letters written to complainant, Ex.OP5 is motor final survey report in which the name  of driver is shown as Nath Singh,Ex.OP6 is insurance policy.
15. Admittedly vide Ex.OP6 the truck in question was insured with the OPs for the total value of Rs.7,50,000/-.As per the documents on file, the truck met with an accident in the state of Gujarat and FIR was registered .The copy of FIR is Ex.C10, it is in Guajarati Language. The medical record of the injured is also on the file.
16. The main contention of the OPs is that the licence of the driver was not supplied to them but the copy of the licence, Ex.C14 is on the file and it  is valid uptill 25.8.2014. The surveyor has surveyed the truck in question and the vehicle is of total loss. The complainant has estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.9,49,731/- .
17. So from the perusal of  documents on the file, it is clear that the accident has happened in the state of Gujarat and the OPs cannot say that no accident has taken place. The RC of the truck is also on the file. The permit Ex.C5 is also on the file. It is admitted by the OPs that they have closed the claim of the complainant for want of documents and have not repudiated the claim till today. So the cause of action is continuing and the complainant has filed the present complaint.
18. From the record, it is clear that insured suffered injuries and driver Nath Singh succumbed to the injuries has died and all the necessary documents have been produced and given to the surveyor. The OPs have concealed the spot survey report and has not submitted the same before this Commission for the reason best known to them.
19. So keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it is proved that the accident took place and the truck was damaged. So the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant as the vehicle in question was total loss and they are also directed to pay interest on this amount @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 4.2.2016 till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/-as costs of litigation. The complainant is also directed to give salvage of the truck to the company before receiving the claim. Compliance of the order be made by the  OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.2.2021

                                                      Y.S.Matta            Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                         Member                 President