Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 49 of 2020
Date of Institution : 26.08.2020
Date of Decision : 29.07.2021
Sawinder Singh aged 65 years son of Hari Singh, resident of village Vain Poin, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, (Adhar Card No. 8689 6318 8890) at present Garden Avenue, Goindwal Road, Tarn Taran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
…..Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. 93 District Shopping complex, First Floor, near Passport Office, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab-143001
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu Member
For Complainant Sh. Gurpal Singh Sandhu
For Opposite Party Ex parte
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019(herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is consumer of opposite party as he has purchased an insurance policy No. 401200/31/16/6300001252 valid from 23.8.2016 to midnight of 22.8.2017 for Rs. 5,00,000/- against his truck bearing Registration No. PB02-AT-9954 Maker Tata. Unfortunately, in the night of 1.7.2017-2.7.2017, complainant’s above said truck had been stolen by unknown persons and he got lodged an FIR No. 158 dated 17.7.2017 under Section 379 IPC at PS City Tarn Taran. After lodging said FIR, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the opposite party for eligible claim. After completion of all the legal and documentary formalities on 3.10.2019 the opposite party released an amount of Rs. 3,98,500/- in favour of complainant through account No. 00000032003165258 running with State Bank of India. Whereas the complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,00,000/- as sum assured vide insurance policy. But the opposite party has paid less amount of Rs. 1,01,500/- to the complainant. The complainant had visited the opposite party many a times but did not pay any attention to his genuine claim. As a last resource, the complainant contacted his advocate and issued a legal notice Ref. No. 96 dated 23.10.2019 vide postal receipt dated 23.10.2019 to settle the matter, but the opposite party had not paid any attention to reply the legal notice. The opposite party has breached the contentions of the insurance policy. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 1,01,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual realization of amount and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as counsel fee. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Photocopy of insurance policy Ex. C-2, Photocopy of Registration Certificate Ex. C-3, Photocopy of FIR No. 158 dated 17.7.2017 Ex. C-4, Photocopy of Bank Statement Ex. C-5, Photocopy of Legal notice Ex. C-6, Postal receipts Ex. C-7, Ex. C-8, Photocopy of letter dated 17.5.2019 Ex. C-9, Photocopy of Form 30 Ex. C-10, Photocopy of Form 38 Ex. C-11, Photocopy of Adhar Card Ex. C-12.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party and consequently, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.10.2020.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.
4 The complainant has produced on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 and declared that the complainant is consumer of opposite party as he has purchased an insurance policy No. 401200/31/16/6300001252 which is Ex. C-2 and same was valid from 23.8.2016 to midnight of 22.8.2017 for Rs. 5,00,000/- against his truck bearing Registration No. PB02-AT-9954 Maker Tata and R.C. is Ex. C-3. He further declared that in the night of 1.7.2017-2.7.2017, complainant’s above said truck had been stolen by unknown persons and he lodged an FIR No. 158 and 17.7.2017 under Section 379 IPC at PS City Tarn Taran and FIR is Ex. C-4. After lodging said FIR, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the opposite party for eligible claim. Thereafter, the opposite party on 3.10.2019 released an amount of Rs.3,98,500/- in favour of complainant through account No. 00000032003165258 running with State Bank of India. Photocopy of bank statement is Ex. C-5. Whereas the complainant is entitled for Rs. 5,00,000/- as sum assured vide insurance policy. But the opposite party has paid less amount of Rs. 1,01,500/- to the complainant. The complainant had visited the opposite party many a times but he did not pay any attention to his genuine claim. As a last resource, the complainant contacted his advocate and issued a legal notice Ref. No. 96 dated 23.10.2019 vide postal receipt dated 23.10.2019 to settle the matter, but the opposite party had not paid any attention to the legal notice. Photocopy of Legal notice is Ex. C-6, postal receipts are Ex. C-7, C-8. The opposite party has breached the contentions of the insurance policy. The complainant has also placed on record letter dated 17.5.2019 Ex. C-9, Photocopy of Form 30 Ex. C-10, Photocopy of Form 38 Ex. C-11, Photocopy of Adhar Card Ex. C-12. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 1,01,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual realization of amount and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as counsel fee.
5 In the present case insurance of the vehicle is not disputed and the accident in the present case is also not disputed. Because after admitting the insurance and accident, the opposite party has made the payment of Rs. 3,98,500/- to the complainant which has been transferred in the account of complainant which is very much clear from the account statement of complainant Ex. C-5. The insurance policy Ex. C-2 shows the IDV of the vehicle as Rs. 5,00,000/-.
6 The evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and un-rebutted as Opposite Party is proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Party and opposite party did not appear in the Commission in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Party has nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against him by the complainant. The opposite has not explained as to why the claim of Rs. 3,98,500/- passed instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- despite various requests and legal notice. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint and it stands established on record that the complainant is approaching the opposite party several times but the opposite party did not care to resolve the matter, not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged in an unfair trade practice.
7 In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party. The opposite party is directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,01,500/- to the complainant subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of Registration certificate of the vehicle in question. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand and Five Hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
29.07.2021
