Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :  79 of 2017

Date of Institution                      :  04.10.2017

Date of Decision               :  04.02.2021

Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of village Warring Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Manager Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. 1^st Floor,  Aminant Mall, 251 Lajpat Nagar, Guru Nanak Mishan Chownk, Jalandhar, 144001,
2. The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Branch Mohanpura through its Manager.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. H.S Sandhu Advocate

For Opposite Party No. 1                 Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate

For Opposite Party No. 2                 Sh. S.S. Anand Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after called as 'the Act') against the Manager Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.  and another on the allegations that the complainant is farmer and for his personal transport needs, he purchased one motorcycle by obtaining loan from the opposite party No. 2 and while lending loan for the same, the opposite party No. 2 got insured the complainant with the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 while insuring the complainant with the opposite party No. 1 told him that he will get an insurance cover of 50,000/- in case of losing one limb in any accident and will also get an Insurance Cover of Rs. 1 Lacs in case of losing two limbs and this insurance cover is being provided to him by this party to get a sort of Security towards the loan amount lead to the complainant and also paid Rs. 1,500/-  for the same from the complainant. The complainant met with a road side accident and lost his right leg in that accident and regarding which a FIR No. 41/2015 was got lodged by him with police Station City Tarn Taran and also got issued a disability certificate as his right leg was amputated during treatment at Amandeep Hospital Amritsar. The complainant was declared with 75% disability by Senior Medical Officer, C.H.C. Sarhali District Tarn Taran. After getting discharged from the Hospital, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for getting the claim of the Insurance Cover of Rs.50,000/- after losing a limb in the above said accident and the opposite party  No. 2 immediately informed the opposite party No. 1 and lodged claim case with it and assured the complainant that claim will be released to him in a fortnight. The complainant also supplied copy of disability certificate alongwith copy of FIR and other relevant documents as required by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that the documents will be sent to the opposite party No. 1 on its responsibility.  The complainant awaited for the insurance amount from the opposite party No. 1 for very long period but the claim was never released to him inspite of repeated visits with the opposite party No.2 and continuous correspondence with opposite party No. 1 but the same was never released to him. The complainant came across with one letter dated 29.7.2015 sent by the opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 for obtaining required documents from it, so the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for pursuing his insurance case and also requested for not taking any more time in deciding the claim as it has already been delayed. The complainant had been approaching the opposite parties since 2015 but no claim has yet been received by him till date. The complainant being handicapped has been facing harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- being the amount insured and the complainant has also prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the commission with the clean hands and he had suppressed material facts from this Commission. The complainant has misled and withheld material facts from this Commission and presented a concocted story just in order to have monitory benefits. The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and the answering opposite party has sent number of letters dated 27.8.2015, 10.9.2015, 31.10.2015, 24.12.2015 the final reminder letter but till today the complainant has not replied to the quarries raised by opposite parties and neither provided the relevant documents as demanded by the replying opposite party as the complainant was directed to submit duly filled and signed claim form, reason for delayed information and delayed documents submission, photo entire medical record for hospitalization, Photo ID and Address proof copy of Bank pass book. The complainant has not provided till date copy of FIR or any medical record from Hospital which shows and proves that injured Balwinder Singh has suffered any injury in the alleged accident, neither the complainant has placed on record disability certificate to pursue this case. The complainant has not produced any document or any justification why they had lodged the claim and information at delayed stage, nor explanation or satisfactory reply has been given. The claim was highly time barred as the alleged accident occurred on 19.1.2015 and the present case was filed after the lapse of more than two years. The complainant has not placed on record any documentary proof of identification proof, their address neither any proof etc. was produced. Neither the complainant has submitted any claim form, nor they have supplied any record of hospital,  record of  police proceedings to prove their alleged submission. All the detailed documents demanded by opposite party is fully described in the above mentioned correspondence done by them but the complainant has not supplied even a single documents despite number of reminders and representations served by the answering opposite party but the complainant had not paid any heed. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant and opposite party No. 2 till today have not supplied any document to the opposite party No.1 and just to fill up lacunas at belated state the complainant has concocted the alleged story. The opposite party No 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint against the replying opposite party is not legally maintainable. The replying opposite party is only doing the business of banking. However, the complainant got the insurance and premium was sent through the replying opposite party. The opposite party No. 2 after receipt of the documents from the complainant forwarded the same immediately to the opposite party No.1. The claim has to be accepted or declined by the opposite party No. 1 only. The opposite party no. 2 has unnecessarily been dragged in the present case. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party No.2 and as such, the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the opposite party No.2 and does not lie and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the opposite party No.2 and complainant. The opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant regarding the alleged claim and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. The complaint is time barred. The complainant has already received the claim under the motor vehicle act from the insurance company/ owner/ driver of the offending vehicle and as such for same accident, he is not entitled to claim twice and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On Merits, it was pleaded that the complainant has purchased the policy of opposite party No.1  and premium was paid through the opposite party No.2.  The documents so submitted by the complainant have already been forwarded by the opposite party no.2 to opposite party No.1 vide letter No. 4467 dated 29.7.2015. The replying opposite party is legally entitled to recover the loan amount alongwith interest. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has only advanced the loan for two wheeler and is entitled to recover the outstanding amount with interest. Neither the opposite party No. 2 is bound to make any payment of the said amount nor there is any liability of the replying opposite party for the same. The replying opposite party is also not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no part of negligence on the part of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        In order to prove his case, the complainant has entered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.  Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Neeraj Shivangikar Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP1/2 to Ex. OP1/11 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurminder Singh Manager of the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. branch Mohanpura Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.