BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 425 of 04.06.2014. Date of Decision: 12.05.2016.
Davinder Singh son of Faquir Singh, resident of village Majra, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Head Office KACS Complex, Nai Abadi, G.T. Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana through its Director.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office SCO-10-11, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Vishal Dua, Advocate.
For OP1 : Complaint against OP1 already dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2015 vide which name of OP1 ordered to be deleted.
For OP2 : Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by claiming that complainant purchased Mahindra Maximo BS-III bearing chasis No.C6K28400, Engine No.HRC6K46338 from OP No.1 and thereafter, the said vehicle was insured with OP2 vide policy bearing No.2315/52683407/00/000 with validity from 12.11.2012 to 11.11.2013. This vehicle later on was got registered with Registering authority bearing registration No.PB-10-DS-9707. This vehicle met with an accident on 10.10.2013, due to which same stood damaged. Surveyor appointed by OP2 inspected the vehicle. The said vehicle lying with OP1 in damaged condition till date of filing of the complaint, despite the fact that complainant approached both Ops to provide their service and do the needful with regard to the claim amount qua repair of the vehicle. However, no action has been taken by Ops and nor the vehicle in question repaired till date. Complainant claimed himself to be the driver by profession earning livelihood by use of the vehicle in question. On 12.03.2014, complainant approached Ops to hand over the vehicle in question after repairing the same, but they refused and as such, legal notice dated 12.03.2014 was served through counsel, but no reply submitted by Ops. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, directions sought against Ops for calling upon them to repair the damaged vehicle in question and hand over the same to complainant. Compensation of Rs.95,000/- claimed.
2. On application filed by OP1, name of OP1 was ordered to be deleted vide orders dated 17.08.2015.
3. In written statement filed by OP2, it is pleaded, interalia, as if complaint is barred by provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; complainant estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complainant is not the consumer as defined in the Act because vehicle in question purchased for commercial purposes for earning huge profit. Besides it is claimed that complicated question of law and fact requiring elaborate evidence are involved, due to which Civil Court of competent jurisdiction can try and decide the present complaint. It is admitted that after receipt of the claim from complainant, same was duly registered, entertained and processed by appointing Sh. Vishal Goyal as surveyor and loss assessor. Said surveyor inspected the vehicle, took photographs and thereafter, prepared the report dated 24.07.2014. OP vide letter dated 06.02.2014 called upon the complainant to submit the documents consisting of duly completed, signed claim form; policy certificate/cover note; registration certificate; self attested copy of driving licence of driver; self attested copy of route permit and fitness certificate; self attested load challan/transport receipt; consent letter; attested copy of discharge voucher and KYC documents. These documents essentially required for processing claim, but complainant failed to submit these documents, due to which claim of complainant could not be processed and the file was closed. So it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Admittedly, complainant purchased the policy, but the vehicle was used as commercial vehicle. Each and every other averment of complaint denied and dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and then closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex. RA of Sh. Piyush Shanker, Legal Officer of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.; Ex. RB of Sh. Vishal Goyal, Surveyor and loss assessor and Ex. RC of Sh. A.S. Mangat, Investigator and even tendered documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R66 and then closed evidence.
6. Written arguments in this case submitted by OP2, but not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
7. Undisputedly the vehicle in question was insured with OP2 through insurance cover note Ex. R1. Copy of the terms and conditions of the commercial vehicle package policy placed on record as Ex. R2. Factum of taking place of accident in question and appointment of surveyor not denied by OP and as such, by keeping in view the contents of Ex. C1 (copy of report U/s. 173 Cr.P.C.), report of mechanic Ex. C2, it has to be held that complainant able to prove as if insured vehicle in question with OP2 met with an accident and that is why he as per terms of insurance policy cover note Ex. C6, he lodged the claim, which was got processed and thereafter, OP obtained surveyor’s report Ex. R3 and the investigation report Ex. R4.
8. Through Ex. R6 documents consisting of claim form, policy certificate etc. as referred in this letter and as referred above as well as in the written statement of OP2 sought from complainant Attested copy of claim intimation sheet Ex. R10 and copy of driving licence of complainant Ex. R12 are produced on record by Ops themselves and as such, it has to be held that virtually complainant submitted some of the documents and that is why Ops able to produce copies of those documents on record of this file as Ex. R10 to Ex. R16, Ex. R19 to Ex. R24, Ex. R26 to Ex. R47 along with photographs of the place of accident as Ex. R17 and Ex. R18. So from perusal of these referred documents as well as other documents produced on record as Ex. R48 to Ex. R66, it is made out that OP2 is in a position to collect the documents from the police or other authorities itself. Claim of complainant is that he had submitted available documents with him. In view of availability of certified copy of registration certificate and driving licence etc. on record, it is obvious that complainant had supplied some of the documents sought by OP2 from complainant through letter Ex. R6. Even through Ex. R5 and Ex. R6, rejection of claim has not taken place and as such, ends of justice warrants that complaint should be disposed of in terms that complainant will provide the documents required by OP2 within 15 days from the date of written requisition from OP2 and after receipt thereof, OP2 will adjudicate the claim of complainant on merits within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents. In case some of the documents required by OP2 from complainant found by complainant to be not available with him, then complainant will submit the proof of non availability of such document in the shape of affidavit. In case titled as Avneet G. Singh Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2014(2) CLT 374 (CHD), it has been held that when a cashless health insurance policy purchased by complainant and he lodged claim by providing the available medical record with him, then claim of insurance cannot be repudiated merely because of non supply of some more record because the insurance company itself can collect medical record from hospital concerned. In view of this legal preposition, in case OP2 requires more documents, then it can collect itself from the authorities concerned because claim form has already been submitted along with copies of registration certificate and driving licence as referred above.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that complainant will provide the documents required by OP2 within 15 days from the date of written requisition from OP2. However, in case the requisite documents not available with complainant, then complainant will submit proof in the shape of affidavit or otherwise qua non availability of concerned requisite documents. After receipt of these available documents from complainant, OP2 will adjudicate the claim of complainant on merits within 45 days from the date of receipt of documents. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:12.05.2016.
Gobind Ram.
