Sh.Iqbal Singh aged about 40 years son of S. Gulzar Singh, resident of Village Sidwan, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Indusind Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager having branch office at Mall Road, Amritsar
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., through its office service to be effected through Branch Manager/Operation Head Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., 204, 2nd Floor, Grand Mall, G.T. Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Sh.Subodh Salwan,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 :Sh. Ravi B. Mahajan,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sumit Sharma,Advcocate
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora,Member
Order dictated by:
Ms. Rachna Arora, Member
1. Sh.Iqbal Singh, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant got Insurance for his vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. PB-02-CC-5096 from opposite party No.2 covering the period from 13.3.2016 to 12.3.2017. The said insurance was obtained through opposite party No.1, who had financed the vehicle in question and the complainant has been making payment of the installments regularly. The policy document was handed over to the complainant by opposite party No.1 and payment of premium was deducted from the account of the complainant maintained in the said branch. The said vehicle was used by the complainant for earning his livelihood. The said vehicle unfortunately met with an accident on 15.3.2016 while unloading the sand at Village Brahmpura, District Tarn Taran and turned turtle on one side i.e. on driver side and vehicle was extensively damaged. After the said accident opposite party No.2 was immediately informed about the said accident and the claim has been lodged vide claim No. 3379165248 with opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 appointed a surveyor to inspect the vehicle in question in order to assess the loss and all the documents as demanded and required were handed over to the surveyor of opposite party No.2. Thereafter the complainant after getting repair of the vehicle has handed over the final bills to the extent of around Rs. 1,80,000/- at the office of opposite party No.2 at Jalandhar. Thereafter complainant made several visits to the opposite party No.1 and also with opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 instead of settling the claim of the complainant putting off the matter on one pretext or the other . It is pertinent to mention here that during the period of processing of claim opposite party NO.2 has sent letters dated 25.3.2016 and 30.3.2016 demanding the submissions of documents which were duly met by the complainant, but even then opposite party No.2 delaying the claim of the complainant. The act of opposite party No.2 in not paying the legitimate claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party No.2 be directed to pass the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000/- ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses were also demanded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed separate written versions.
3. Opposite party No.1 in its written version has submitted that as far as availing of loan/financial facility by the complainant from the replying opposite party is concerned, the same is a matter of record. However, the replying opposite party has nothing to do with the insurance of vehicle conducted by the complainant from opposite party No.2. It was denied that the complainant ever visited the replying opposite party much less there was any occasion to do so as it is internal matter between the complainant and opposite party No.2 and the replying opposite party has nothing do so with the matter in dispute. The replying opposite party is well within its right to recover its lawful dues in the loan account and the complainant cannot take benefit of the fact s stated in complaint to avoid payment of lawful dues of the replying opposite party in the said loan account. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction as the opposite party No.2 has no office at District Amritsar. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts . The insured has not produced the vehicle for its repair and also not produced re-inspection , fitness copy estimate and final bills to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has already sent three reminders to the insured , but no response was made by the insured, hence the opposite party No.2 has closed the file of the insured. Opposite party No.2 has unloaded the reason of repudiation and mail has been sent to opposite party No.1. The complainant himself is guilty of not disclosing the real fact before this Forum. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.
5. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Subodh Salwan,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. However, at the stage of adducing evidence ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated at bar that if the complainant provides the documents i.e. fitness certificate of the vehicle in question, repair bills as well as vehicle for re-inspection to opposite party No.2 and then after inspecting the aforesaid documents the claim would be settled , which the complainant is ready to provide. As such it is justifiable if the complaint is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
7. Consequently, the complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to provide documents i.e. fitness certificate of the vehicle in question, repair bills to opposite party No.2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and opposite party No.2 is directed to give 7 days prior notice to the complainant mentioning place date and time for reinspection of the vehicle in question and thereafter to settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 9.11.2017
