BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 202 of 2015                                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution         :    10.11.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :    28.9.2017.

Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Vakeel Singh, resident of Ward No.1-2, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office :IFFCO Sadan C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110 017 through its Manager.

2. Gurpreet Singh, Agent Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Opp. Salasar Dham, Lal Batti Chowk, Sirsa.

3. Shri Rajeev Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Hisar.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………….. MEMBER

          SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. J.B.L. Garg,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.

                   Opposite party no.2 exparte.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No.RJ-31G/6528 which was got insured with the opposite party no.1 through op no.2 vide insurance policy No. 1-2H3RP4 P 400 policy No.84139287 for the period 4.6.2013 to 3.6.2014. That on 31.1.2014, the aforesaid truck of the complainant met with a road side accident near village Dariyapur, District Fatehabad and the said truck suffered heavy damages. The complainant gave immediate information to ops no.1 and 2 whereupon op no.1 got inspected the site of accident through its surveyor Sh. Rajeev Gupta op no.3. As per instructions of the Surveyor, the complainant got prepared the estimate of cost of repair etc. which was estimated at Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant accordingly got repaired the said vehicle and incurred a sum of Rs.90,000/- on its repair and replacement of damaged parts. That thereafter, the complainant submitted the bills, photos, CD and estimate etc. of the said damaged truck to the op no.3 for lodging claim with op no.1. Accordingly, the claim was lodged with op no.1 and complainant also completed the required formalities for settlement of his claim but till date the ops have not paid any amount to the complainant. The complainant also visited the ops and requested for settlement of his claim but they have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the complainant got issued a legal notice upon the ops on 17.10.2015 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding estoppal, suppression of material facts; jurisdiction and maintainability and that complainant never submitted the required documents to the ops till date despite notice dated 26.2.2014, reminder letter dated 3.3.2014 and final letter dated 15.3.2014. Moreover, the amount of compensation being claimed by the complainant with malafide intention is very excessive, exaggerated and exorbitant one. The complainant never paid visits to the ops. It is further submitted that complainant never supplied the estimate of damages nor presented the vehicle for final inspection even after several above said letters. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Op no.3 did not file written statement despite availing various opportunities including last opportunity and therefore, right for filing written statement on behalf of op no.3 was closed.

4.                Initially, op no.2 appeared in person for only one date i.e. on 15.2.2017 and thereafter none appeared on behalf of op no.2 and as such he was proceeded against exparte.

5.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2, copy of certificate of insurance cum schedule Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 30.1.2014 Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copies of invoice cum challan Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of driving licence Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipts Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 and photographs Ex.C13 to Ex.C50. On the other hand, op No.1 produced copy of letter dated 26.2.2014 Ex.R1, copy of letter dated 3.3.2014 Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 15.3.2014 Ex.R3, copy of motor final survey report Ex.R4.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved on record that requisite documents were supplied to the ops/ their surveyor and he approached many times to the ops for settlement of his claim but all the times the op no.1 is claiming documents on one pretext or the other, though the report of the surveyor also reflects in the column of attachment that documents were duly supplied to the ops which were required for the settlement of the claim. It has also been contended that it is proved case of the complainant that vehicle of the complainant was duly insured with op no.1 on the day of accident and spot inspection was got done by op no.1 through its surveyor and surveyor had submitted his final report on 26.3.2014 but despite that op no.1 is avoiding to settle the claim on one or the other reason.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 has strongly contended that despite written requests of the ops dated 26.2.2014, 3.3.2014 and 15.3.2014, the complainant had not supplied the requisite documents detailed in those letters which made the ops handicapped to settle the claim of the complainant. Even the complainant has not supplied requisite documents despite directions of the Forum. The ops never refused to settle the claim of the complainant if requisite documents are supplied with the ops.

9.                We have considered rival contentions of the parties. The perusal of the record reveal that complainant has filed the present complaint with specific averments that vehicle No.RJ-31G/6528 of the complainant was insured with op no.1 for the period 4.6.2013 to 3.6.2014 and the truck of the complainant met with an accident on 31.1.2014. Due intimation was lodged with the ops and claim was lodged. Spot inspection was got conducted by op no.1 through their surveyor Sh. Rajeev Gupta op no.3. The vehicle was got repaired at the cost of Rs.90,000/-. In order to prove his case, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2, copy of certificate of insurance cum schedule Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 30.1.2014 Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copies of invoice cum challan Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of driving licence Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipts Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 and photographs Ex.C13 to Ex.C50. On the other hand, op no.1 has taken a specific plea that the complainant never submitted the required documents to op no.1 till date despite written requests dated 26.2.2014, 3.3.2014 and 15.3.2014. The complainant never paid any visits. Without getting the documents, the op no.1 is not in position to decide the claim of the complainant. The op no.1 in order to prove its defence plea has furnished copies of letters dated 26.2.2014, 3.3.2014 and 15.3.2014 as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and copy of motor final survey report Ex.R4.

10.              The perusal of the document motor final survey report Ex.R4 reveals that as per surveyor who submitted this report has specifically mentioned at page No.3 of the report under head attachments “certified fitness certificate, others, attested/ certified permit, verified registration certificate.” It also finds mention that the spot survey was done on 31.1.2014. So it appears from the report that requisite documents were duly supplied by the complainant to the op no.1/ its surveyor who has mentioned details of the attached documents with the report Ex.R4. Moreover, the complainant has also tendered in evidence the documents namely copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2, copy of certificate of insurance cum schedule Ex.C3, copy of bill dated 30.1.2014 Ex.C4, copy of email Ex.C5, copies of invoice cum challan Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of driving licence Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipts Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 and photographs Ex.C13 to Ex.C50. So it appears that complainant has submitted all the documents on record as well as to the op no.1 but even then if there is need of any document, the ops can claim the same by serving fresh notice calling upon the complainant to submit the documents which they require for the settlement of the claim.

11.              In view of above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to call upon the complainant with a written notice requiring documents, if any by ops in order to settle claim of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further complainant is directed to submit documents which they require if same have not been supplied earlier to the ops within another 15 days and ops are directed to settle and pay claim of the complainant within further period of 30 days from the receipt of documents on the basis of survey report as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                                President,

Dated:28.09.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Sirsa.