BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/692 of 18.8.2010 

                                                Decided on:          14.9.2011

Suresh Kumar son of Sh.Gian Chand,resident of House No.122, Deshmesh Colony, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan C-1, Distt.Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110017.

2.                 The IFFCO TOKIO General Insruance Co.Ltd. SCO 62, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala, District Patiala.

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

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     None

For opposite parties:     Sh.B.S.Chehal, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant being the owner of the vehicle make Sawraj Mazda bearing registration No.PB-12B 9929 got the same insured with the ops vide cover note no.38838153 for the period 24.4.2009 to 23.4.2010, in respect of which policy no.1-7UGA-120P400  policy no.42575115 was issued.

2.       The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident in respect of which DDR was lodged. Op no.2 was also informed about the accident alongwith relevant documents. A surveyor was appointed, who submitted the report for the release of an amount of Rs.65000/-.

3.       The complainant filed the complaint with Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh but with no result and that the same will be withdrawn by the complainant.

4.       It is alleged that he felt harassed at the hands of the ops and who a week before the filing of the complaint, the ops refused to release the charges of the accident without disclosing any reason and describing the act on the part of the ops as illegal has 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 release the amount of Rs.65000/- with interest @18% per annum and also he be got paid Rs.15000/- by way of damages.

5.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted by the ops that the claim was lodged by the complainant which was processed.Alongwith the claim the complainant had submitted a copy of the driving licence of Gurmeet Singh S/o Sadhu Singh r/o Gulab Nagar,Dhamoli,District Patiala meant for driving scooter and light motor vehicle valid upto 28.3.2009.The surveyor had submitted his report with regard to the driving licence supplied by the complainant who also reported that Gurmeet Singh driver was held a licence to drive a scooter and LMT only and not the truck which is a heavy transport vehicle. The surveyor had not submitted any report with regard to the extent of loss to the vehicle. The surveyor later submitted the report regarding the extent of loss only in case the driving licence was found valid. On the over leaf of the cover note there is a mandatory clause that any person including the insured is to hold an effective driving licence while driving the insured vehicle.

6.       The claim of the complainant was repudiated and due intimation regarding the same was given to him vide letter dated 27.1.2010 through registered post. The op denied the other averments of the complaint going against them and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.       In support of his claim, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 alongwith the documents Exs.C2 to C7 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

8.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops their learned counsel produced in evidence, Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Rajiv Chowdhry, authorized signatory of op no.1 and closed their evidence.

9.       The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the ops none having appeared on behalf o the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Without touching the merits of the complaint, it may be noted that as per the peal taken up by the ops that they had repudiated the claim of the complainant and he was conveyed about the same vide letter dated 27.1.2010 sent through registered post. The said fact is also deposed to by Rajiv Chowdhry, authorized signatory of op no.1 in his sworn afidavit,Ex.R1 but the ops have not produced in evidence the copy of letter dated 27.1.2010 in the absence of which we find ourselves unable as to on what grounds the ops had repudiated the claim of the complainant.

11.     The ops have also not produced any report of the surveyor to show what was the outcome of the survey and investigation conveyed by him.

12.     The complainant has placed on file the copy of the complaint lodged before Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh on 7.4.2010 at Sr.no.6356, in which in Para no.10 it is disclosed that the complaint was lodged with the insurance company on 19.7.2009.In this way, the ops can be said to have consumed a time of one year and four months in repudiating the claim of the complainant but still as discussed earlier are not in a position as to on what ground the claim has been repudiated except that from the pleas taken up in the written statement and the sworn affidavit,Ex.R1 it bears that the driving licence of Gurmeet Singh was meant for scooter and LMV only and not for truck which is a heavy transport vehicle.

13.     Unless and until the ops disclosed the very ground in an authentic document prepared by them and conveyed to the complainant, it will not appropriate for us to comment upon the same. Therefore, taken into account, the facts and circumstances, we of course treat the act of the ops in having consumed a period of one year and four months in repudiating the claim of the complainant and that too without any authentic record to have been prepared in this regard and deficiency of service. We partly accept the complaint and give a direction to the ops to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order and to convey the same to the complainant through registered post and in case the claim is settled in favour of the complainant to make the payment of the same to the complainant within 15 days from the submission of the claim. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we award the complainant a compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by him at the hands of the ops in a sum of Rs.10, 000/- which also includes the costs of the complaint.

Pronounced.

Dated:14.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President