Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1109/2013

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mandeep Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.1109 of 2013                                                  

            Date of institution  :    14.10.2013

Date of decision     :    05.03.2015

 

National Insurance Company Limited, 2089, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Regional Office-I, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager S.L. Rikhi.

…….Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Mandeep Singh S/o Baldev Singh, R/o V&PO Bhaini Bagha, Tehsil and District Mansa.

                                                                   …Respondent/Complainant   

First Appeal against the order dated 20.08.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President

                        Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant            : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate

          For the respondent        : Shri Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Mandeep Singh, respondent/ complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), was accepted with Rs.5,000/-, as compensation and costs and the complainant was directed to submit Letter of Subrogation/affidavit, duly signed and attested by Oath Commissioner, giving ownership rights of the vehicle in question to the opposite party; in case the stolen vehicle will be traced at any stage, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.4,56,750/- (being 75% of the IDV of Rs.6,09,000/-) to him within next 30 days. It was ordered that in case of non-compliance of the order by the opposite party within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, the interest shall be paid on the said sum of Rs.4,56,750/- at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount.     

2.           The complainant alleged in his complaint that he purchased one vehicle Bolero SLX from M/s Imperial Motors, Bathinda on 16.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.6,09,000/- and got the same insured with the opposite party, after the payment of Rs.17,541/-, for the period 16.04.2010 to 15.04.2011. The vehicle was stolen on 11.10.2010 at about 1.30 P.M.; in respect of which, FIR No.80 dated 11.10.2010 was registered in Police Station, Phase-8, SAS Nagar, Mohali. He immediately informed the opposite party about the theft and lodged his claim and submitted the required documents, as demanded by it. The police failed to trace out the vehicle and the Untraced Report was submitted in the Court of J.M.I.C., S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali on 05.12.2011. The opposite party was required to settle his claim within three months, but was not decided. In the beginning, its officials were telling him that his claim would be settled, after the court accepts the Untraceable Report, but the same has not been settled even after the said report has been accepted by the court, in spite of the repeated demands and requests made by him. On the legal advice of his counsel, he filed Consumer Complaint No.82 of 23.02.2012 in the District Consumer Forum, Mansa; which was dismissed on 12.12.2012, with liberty to him to seek the redressal from the court of competent jurisdiction. The act of the opposite party in not settling his claim, is arbitrary, mala fide, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As a result thereof he suffered mental tension, harassment, botheration, inconvenience and financial loss and for the same, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party, besides direction to it to pay Rs.6,09,000/-, as the price of the vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 18%  from the date of theft till the date of payment.
3.           The complaint was contested by the opposite party, by filing written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, it did not deny that the vehicle was got insured with it by the complainant. It admitted that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to it by the complainant and that the claim was also submitted under the insurance policy. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that immediately after the intimation regarding the theft was given to it, it swung into action and demanded the requisite documents from the complainant, through various letters, for settling his claim. However, for the reasons best known to the complainant, he failed to provide those requisite documents and also failed to cooperate for the settlement of the claim. He himself mentioned that the registration certificate, though applied before the theft of the vehicle, had not been issued by the D.T.O. and the same would be submitted as and when received by him. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, Mansa, it filed the written reply and gave an open option to the complainant that it was still ready and willing to settle his claim, subject to the submission of the registration certificate of the vehicle, but the same was never supplied to it.  The claim could not be settled for want of those documents and, as such, it cannot be held that it acted arbitrarily, illegally or is deficient in service. The lapses were on the part of the complainant himself and for the same it cannot be burdened with liability. The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable in the present form. He is not a “consumer”, as defined in the Act. Loss, if any, is to be indemnified on the submission of the requisite documents and as per the provisions of rules and regulations. Intricate questions of law and fact are involved; in support of which, the parties will have to lead their evidence by way of examining and cross-examining the witnesses. The procedure under the Act is summary in nature and the complainant, if so advised, may file civil suit, seeking the alleged relief.  It also pleaded that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It prayed for the dismissal thereof, with special costs of Rs.10,000/- under Section 26 of the Act; being false, frivolous and having been filed to harass it, by dragging it into uncalled for litigation.  
4.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, accepted the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6.           The finding recorded by the District Forum has been challenged before us by the learned counsel for the opposite party, only on the ground that as per the guidelines issued for the settlement of the claims regarding the theft, the complainant was required to get the registration book of the vehicle transferred in favour of the insurance company and was to execute Letter of Subrogation and Indemnity, before the submission of his claim. It is an admitted fact that he failed to do so and, as such, the District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint and for issuing the directions, mentioned therein. According to him, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
7.           On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the said guidelines have no binding force, as those were never incorporated in the insurance policy and the same were never made a ground for repudiating the claim by the opposite party. It is not settling the claim and is keeping it as such for a long time, which itself amounts to deficiency in service on its part. No illegality was committed by the District Forum, in allowing the complaint and issuing the directions, as mentioned in the order under appeal.  There is no ground for upsetting that well reasoned order.
8.           The Guidelines for Settlement of Claims-Own Damage were proved on record by the opposite party, as Ex.OP-1/4. It is not the case of the opposite party that these guidelines have the force of a statute. Nothing was proved on the record, as to who issued these guidelines and under the exercise of which power, the same were issued. To us, it appears that these guidelines were issued by the insurance company itself, for the guidance of its officials. These guidelines are not binding upon the complainant.        
9.           Moreover, the relevant guideline 3.3, which has been reproduced below, has not been properly interpreted by the counsel for the complainant:-

3.3    The following documents should be collected from          the insured in addition to a certified copy of the First Information Report, for considering “on    account” payment of the admissible claim after      expiry of 90 days from the date of loss.

(i)      Surrender of the Registration Book and the Tax     Book to the insurer duly transferred in the name of     the insurers. The RTO is to be informed about the   theft of the vehicle and this should be entered in    Tax Book so that further tax will not accrue.

(ii)      Letter of Indemnity and Subrogation.

(iii)     Ignition keys of the vehicle.

(iv)    Certificate of Insurance and the original insurance           policy, if not stolen with the vehicle.

(v)     Specially worded discharge voucher.

 

The documents mentioned therein were to be collected from the complainant, where the opposite party had reached the conclusion that the claim was payable under the insurance policy to the complainant. The interest of the opposite party was safeguarded by the District Forum, by issuing the above said direction to the complainant. The amount was payable to him by the opposite party, only after the submission of those documents. After that direction was issued by the District Forum, it cannot be said that there is any merit in the submission so raised by the counsel for the opposite party. We do not find that the order passed by the District Forum suffers from any illegality or infirmity. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.

10.           The appellant had deposited Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.4,36,750/- on 07.11.2013, as per the directions of this Commission. Both these amounts along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
11.           The arguments in this case were heard on 02.03.2015 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

 

                                                        (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                       PRESIDENT  

                                                         

 

 

                                                        (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                          MEMBER

                                                         

 

 

                                                         (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

March 05, 2015                                           MEMBER

(Gurmeet S)