Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/332

Kulwant singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s shri Ganesh Auto - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A.S.Kathuria adv

13 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/332 of 5.12.2014

                                      Decided on:        13.05.2015

 

Kulwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh, resident of Chanda Colony, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

         

 

                                                                   …...............Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s Shri Ganesh Automobiles, Jakhal Road, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala through its Prop. Vicky son of Manga Ram (authorized dealer of Hiro Corp.Ltd.)
2. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co.having its Branch office at New Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                   ….............Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.A.S.Kathuria, Advocate

For Op No.2       :          Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate   

         

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-11-ZH-7577 from Op no.1 for Rs.44,910/- vide invoice No.4219 dated 28.08.2014. He got his said motor cycle insured with Op no.2 vide policy No.3005/24135502/21485/000 for the period 28.8.2014 to 27.8.2015.
2. On 8.9.2014, the complainant had gone to village Meond Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad to see his relative and when he was coming back to  Patran that at about 6.30PM a stray bull had suddenly come on the road in the area of village Meond Kalan and hit against the motor cycle of the complainant. As a result of the accident, the complainant sustained  internal injuries and the front portion of the motor cycle was badly damaged. The complainant immediately approached the nearest police station to lodge the report but the police officials did not lodge the report under the pretext that such types of reports are not lodged as there was no fault of any body.
3. The complainant brought the factum regarding the accident to the notice of Op no.1, who asked the complainant to bring his motor cycle to the showroom and that all the formalities will be got completed and the claim will be lodged with Op no.2. Accordingly the complainant had taken his motor cycle to the showroom of Op no.1. Op no.1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on the printed forms and also obtained the photo copies of the documents and it was assured by Op no.1 that the claim in respect of the loss of the motor cycle will be got paid within 15 days. Op no.1 told the complainant that the loss to the motor cycle was about Rs.25000/-.
4. It is further averred that no amount in respect of the loss of the motor cycle had been paid by the Ops although he approached them. Because of the non-payment/settlement of the claim of the complainant, he suffered harassment as also the mental agony and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.25000/-.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for seeking a direction to the Ops to pay him the claim amount with interest @12% per annum from the date of the loss ; to pay him Rs.25000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him the costs of the complaint.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2, who on appearance filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that since the complaint involves complicated question of law and facts and therefore, it will involve the examination and cross examination of the witnesses which is not possible in the summary proceedings and the matter has got to be decided by the civil court; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the material and relevant facts; that the complaint being frivolous and fictitious, the same is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act and that the complainant has failed to setup the nexus between the compensation claimed in the complaint and the damages suffered by him. As regards the facts of the complaint, the Op has not denied the complainant having got his motor cycle insured with the Op as per the particulars given in the complaint. It is however, the plea taken up by the Op that no claim was lodged by the complainant with the Op or by Op no.1 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Op to verify  the genuineness of the alleged occurrence. Non-intimation of the alleged occurrence amounts to a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant had never approached the Op . When no claim was lodged by the complainant with Op, there was no occasion for the Op to disburse the claim. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it was prayed by the Op to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with the documents Exs.C1 to C3 and his counsel closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager of the Op at Chandigarh alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
8. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
9. It is the positive plea taken up by Op no.2 that the complainant had never approached the Op and lodged the claim with it and therefore, there was no occasion for the Op to have settled the claim of the complainant. In this regard, it may be noted that it is alleged by the complainant in Para no.7 of the complaint that on 9.9.2014, the complainant had taken the motor cycle to the showroom of Op no.1 and Op no.1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on the printed forms and obtained the photo copies of the other documents from the complainant and it was assured by Op no.1 that the claim in respect of the loss of the motor cycle will be got paid to the complainant within 15 days. Nothing is alleged by the complainant that Op no.1, the seller of the motor cycle has got any connection with Op no.2 in the matter of lodging the claim on behalf of the complainant. Even, it is not alleged by the complainant that Op no.1 had lodged the claim on  his behalf with Op no.2 and that Op no.1 had obtained any acknowledgment regarding the same from Op no.2. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how the complainant claims having lodged the claim regarding the loss caused to his motor cycle in the accident with Op no.2. The complainant has also not produced the affidavit of any authorized person of Op no.1 who could state that he had lodged the claim on behalf of the complainant with Op no.2. In that way, it would appear that the complainant never lodged his claim with the insurer i.e. Op no.2 and therefore, no deficiency of service, of any kind, on behalf of Op no.2 could be alleged by the complainant. There is the categoric deposition  made by Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager of Op no.2 at Chandigarh that the complainant had never approached the Op and that no claim was lodged by the complainant with the Op or by op No.1 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Op to verify the genuineness of the alleged occurrence. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against Op no.2 and the complaint being premature is liable to fail and the same is hereby dismissed with the observation that the complainant may approach this Forum only after the claim lodged by him with Op no.2 is not settled in his favour

Pronounced

Dated:13.05.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President