Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/441

Avninder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C.No.441 of 11.06.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:15.04.2015

Arvinder Singh son of Late Sh.Charan Singh, resident of 198-A, Aggar Nagar Enclave, Ludhiana-141001.

                                                                                      … Complainant.

                                             Versus

1.National Insurance Company Limited., DO-1, Atam Park, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2.Swani Motors Services Pvt. Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.

                                                                                       …Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER                                                    PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.              

                  

Present       Sh.Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Rajan Kumar Chand, Adv. for OP1.

Sh.Parveen Garg, Adv, for OP2.

 

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Arvinder Singh(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against National Insurance Company Limited., DO-1, Atam Park, Ludhiana through its Manager and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay the claim of Rs.4,52,448/-alongwith interest @24% p.a, and damages of Rs.2 lakh suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of Ops alongwith future interest upto realization and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one car make Swift Dzire from OP2 having engine No.1635614 which the complainant had got insured with OP1 through OP2 vide certificate-cum-policy No.35101031136133233275 dated 31.5.2013 which was valid from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 and the complainant had paid full amount to the Ops as premium through cheques. After the purchase of the said car, the complainant registered the same with District Transport Office and the car was allotted number as PB-10-DF-0342. On 17.6.2013, the said car met with an accident and the same was totally damaged. Grand son namely Sehaj of the complainant died at the spot. The son of the complainant and daughter-in-law also suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. In this regard, FIR No.118 of 2013 u/s 304-A/279/337/338 and 427 IPC was registered at P.S.Sadar, Khanna. The claim was lodged by the complainant to the Ops alongwith all the original documents and thereafter, despite repeated approach with the Ops to sanction the full claim as they have suffered a lot, but the Ops failed to do so. Finally, on 20.3.2014, the OP1 had repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds and refused to pay the said loss to the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds. On the other hand, OP2 is started demanding the parking charges of the vehicle in question from the complainant. Infact, the complainant is not liable to pay any such parking charges as there is no fault on the part of the complainant, if the Ops who are dilly delaying the matter on one or the other false pretext. The demand raised by the OP2 is claimed to be illegal, null and void and is liable to be quashed. The complainant is entitled for the claim of Rs.4,52,448/- on the grounds that the aforesaid policy was issued on receipt of premium and there is no gap in the policies and the premium cheque has been encashed as per certificate of the Punjab National Bank, Aggar Nagar Branch, Ludhiana. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complainant, Ops were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies.

4.                Op1 filed the written reply through Sh.Rajan Kumar Chand, Advocate, in which, OP1 took up the certain preliminary objections that this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service or negligence as alleged on the part of the answering Op. The complainant lodged the claim with the answering OP and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. M/s R.P.Gupta and Co. was deputed for preliminary survey and assessment of loss, who inspected the vehicle, took the photographs and collected the documents and submitted Motor Survey Report (Preliminary) dated 10.10.2013 with the answering OP. M/s R.P.Gupta & Co. was also submitted Motor Survey Report (final) dated 27.11.2013 alongwith photographs and documents, subject to the terms and conditions and exceptions of the policy. The answering OP also deputed Sh.Prem Singh, investigator to investigate the matter, who submitted his investigation reports dated 6.12.2013 and 13.11.2013 with the answering OP. After the receipt of the survey reports and investigation reports alongwith documents, the claim of the complainant was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying the mind by the officials of answering OP, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20.3.2014 which is self explanatory and gives the detailed reason of repudiation of the claim. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the vehicle was financed with Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Gole Market, Ludhiana but the complainant has not impleaded the said bank as party in the present complaint.The Punjab National Bank vide letter dated 24.1.2014 informed to the answering OP that Maruti Desire was financed to Arwinder Singh son of Charan Singh, resident of House No.198, Aggar Nagar Enclave, Ludhiana on 1.6.2011 which bears the registration No.PB-10-DF-0342 and the said bank further requested to the answering OP to issue the claim cheque in favour of the bank for credit of car loan account No.521000NG00000971. Thus, the aforesaid bank is necessary party in the present complaint. The complainant has not supplied the relevant and required documents to the answering OP for verification as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is barred u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint since he is not coming to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, the facts regarding issuance of policy in question by the answering OP, lodging of claim and repudiation of the same by the answering OP are not denied. However, it is submitted that the complainant has not made the compliance of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. The complainant has not paid the premium of insurance policy to the answering OP at the time of alleged accident, so there was no contract at that time. The compliance of aforesaid section was necessary to complete the contract between the parties. The complainant has not supplied the copy of RC and as per the RC, the complainant is owner of the car No.PB-10-DF-0342. Further, it is submitted that the answering OP has not obtained original documents from the complainant. Further, it is submitted that M/s R.P.Gupta and Co. had submitted his survey report subject to terms and conditions of the policy. After the receipt of the survey report, the officials of answering OP assessed the net loss of Rs.2,27,298/- which was actually payable to the complainant as per terms and conditions and exception of the policy. The complainant also submitted affidavit dated 25.1.2014 duly attested by Notary Public, vide which, the complainant had given his acceptance to receive Rs.2,27,548/- as full and final settlement. The said assessment of Rs.2,27,548/- was subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same was repudiated vide letter dated 20.2.2014. The complainant has wrongly claimed the amount of Rs.4,52,448/- from the answering OP. Moreover, the complainant is not entitled for any amount as his claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                OP2 filed the separate written reply through Sh.Parveen Garg, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is based on false allegations. The complainant has played fraud with the answering OP. Firstly, he did not handover the cheque No.810453 for Rs.10,906/- at the time, when the policy was issued to him i.e. on 31.5.2013 and secondly, he did not disclose to the answering OP that the car has already met with an accident on 17.6.2013, at the time when, he handed over the cheque on 18.6.2013. The cheque was encashed on 19.6.2013, but the factum of accident was not known to the answering OP. Had this fact been known to the answering OP that the car had already met with an accident, they would not have accepted the cheque which was handed over on 18.6.2014 instead of 31.5.2014 by the complainant. It is clear that after the car met with an accident, the complainant in order to file this claim, had handed over the cheque on 18.6.2013, so that he takes the plea that the claim is covered under the said insurance policy as the policy was issued effective from 1.6.2013 till 31.5.2014. The policy would have come into being and in force only if the payment had been made under the said policy in respect to the premium, but the premium was only paid on 19.6.2013 by which date already the damage had been done and therefore, the policy cannot take effect and has failed altogether. No claim is maintainable under the said policy by the complainant on account of the abovesaid facts and also on account of his own act and conduct. The complainant thus is stopped to file the present complaint or to make any claim against the answering OP in respect to the alleged damage to the car said to have taken place on 17.6.2013. The complainant has kept the car in the workshop of answering OP at Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana from 1.7.2013 for the purpose of repair. The complainant had also given instructions that the car may be repaired only after receipt of the compensation from the insurance company and therefore, the car was not started to be repaired by the answering OP. The answering OP had told the complainant that the car cannot be kept parked in its workshop without any consideration and without hiring charges. A letter had been written by the answering OP calling upon the complainant that he will be charged Rs.200/- per day as parking charges which letter was duly received by the complainant. Thus, calculated as such, from 1.7.2013 uptill date, the amount of Rs.96,000/- approximately is due against the complainant, for which, separate action will be taken by the answering OP. The car continues to incur further liability at the rate of Rs.200/- per day as parking charges till it is removed by the complainant from the premises of the answering OP. On merits, it is denied that the insurance policy in question was obtained by the complainant, but it was obtained without making any payment and therefore, it is wrong that the said policy was valid from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014. The car was purchased on 1.6.2011. The complainant had requested that his insurance policy is expiring on 31.5.2013 as uptill that day, the car was insured with National Insurance Co.Ltd. The complainant made a phone call to the answering OP that he is sending a cheque No.810453 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana for Rs.10,906/- to the answering OP and that a policy may be got issued in his favour covering the period from 1.6.2013 till 31.5.2014. The complainant had told the answering OP that he shall issue the cheque in the morning on 1.6.2013, so that the same can be presented on the same day and the coverage of the insurance policy starts from 1.6.2013 onwards. Thereafter, the complainant did not meet the answering OP despite the fact that the representative of the answering OP several times visited the house of the complainant at 198-A, Aggar Nagar Enclave, Ludhiana and it was told from outside to them that Arvinder Singh was not in the house. On 18.6.2013, suddenly, one person from the side of the complainant appeared in the office of answering OP and handed over a cheque dated 17.6.2013 bearing NO.810453 for the amount of Rs.10,906/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana to them. The cheque was accepted in routine in the office of answering OP and was presented for encashment on 18.6.2013 itself and was encashed on 19.6.2013. The answering OP never knew that the car had met with an accident on 17.6.2013 as was discovered later on. The said fact was again concealed from the answering OP that the car was already damaged when the cheque was handed over to the answering OP. Under these circumstances, the policy can be said to have effective only w.e.f.19.6.2013, when the cheque was encashed as it was subject to encashment/realization of the amount and not prior thereto. The said amount was debited to the account of the complainant on 19.6.2013 as it transpired later on. It had also been learned that the complainant did not have any funds with him in his bank account till 17.6.2013 and only the amount available is less than Rs.10,000/-, while the premium was Rs.10,906/- which was due to be paid by the complainant on the said insurance policy. No loss has been suffered by the complainant in the circumstances so far as the insurance policy is concerned and there was valid reason for the insurance company to repudiate the claim of the complainant as the complainant has not acted fairly in respect to the dealings and has tried to play mischief by handing over the cheque on 18.6.2013, while the car had already met with an accident on 17.6.2013. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to support the case of the complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13.

7.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Sunil Tuli, its Relationship Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OP1 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Sh.Prem Singh, who was appointed as investigator by the Op1 to conduct the investigation of the matter, in which, he has proved his investigation reports dated 13.11.2013 and 6.12.2013. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has placed on record affidavit Ex.RW3/A of Sh.R.P.Gupta of M/s R.P.Gupta & Company, who was appointed as Insurance Surveyor by the Op1 in order to conduct the survey and assessment of loss, in which, he has proved his Motor Survey Report(Preliminary) dated 10.10.2013 and Motor Survey Report(Final) dated 27.11.2013 alongwith photographs and documents. Further, learned counsel for the Op1 has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R23.

8.                 On the other side, learned counsel for the OP2 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Gagandeep Singh Swani, its Director, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OP2 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op2 has proved on record documents Ex.R1/A to Ex.R3/C.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved on record that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question which he had purchased from OP2 and the same was insured with the OP1 vide certificate-cum-policy No.35101031136133233275 dated 31.5.2013 which was valid from 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 and the complainant had paid full amount to the Ops as premium through cheques. It has further been contended that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 17.6.2013 and the same was totally damaged and grand son namely Sehaj of the complainant died at the spot and the son of the complainant and daughter-in-law had also suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. Further, it has been contended that FIR No.118 of 2013 u/s 304-A/279/337/338 and 427 IPC was got registered at P.S.Sadar, Khanna and thereafter, due intimation was given to the OP1 and the claim was lodged by the complainant alongwith required documents. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP1 arbitrarily and illegally on 20.3.2014 on the ground that the premium has not been paid. The complainant had paid the premium well in time to the OP2 vide cheque bearing No.810453 for Rs.10,906/- at the time of issuance of the cover note. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgments titled as Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Dharam Chand and others-2010 ACJ02659(S.C.) and CEO, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and others vs. Abhijat Saini and others-2014(4)CLT-502(N.C.).

11.              Learned counsel for the OP1 has contended that after the accident, the complainant had lodged the claim with the OP1 but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 20.3.2014 on the ground that Section 64VB of the Insurance Act have not been complied with, as such, the claim is not maintainable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same was closed as ‘No Claim’. Further, it has been contended that cheque dated 17.6.2013 was issued by the complainant and handed over the same to OP2 on 18.6.2013 which was got encashed on 19.6.2013. Though, the accident took place on 17.6.2013.

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP2 has strongly contended that it is proved fact that the complainant did not make any payment on 31.5.2013 at the time of issuance of the cover note of the insurance policy as the same was issued on telephonic call of the complainant that he is out of station and he sent the cheque No.810453 which is dated 17.6.2013 which was handed over to the OP2 on 18.6.2013 and the same was got encashed by the insurance company on 19.6.2013. Further, it has been contended that OP2 has only acted as an agent of OP1 for issuance of cover note but there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP2. Rather, the vehicle was parked for carrying out the repair in the workshop of OP2. However, the complainant has neither repaired his vehicle nor he has paid the parking charges, for which, the complainant is liable to pay to the OP2, but failed to pay despite repeated demand raised by the OP2. Further, learned counsel for the OP2 has relied upon judgments titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Jaya Chandel-2008(2)RCR(Civil)-29(S.C.); New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Nagpur vs. Sau. Anjanabai Parashram Jadhav and others-2006(1)RCR(Civil)-787(Bombay High Court) and National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Yellamma and another-2008(4)RCR(Civil)-315(S.C.).

13.              We have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP2 and have also perused the document on the file very carefully.

14.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-DF-0342 which was purchased by the complainant from OP2 and insured with the Op1 vide certificate-cum-policy No.35101031136133233275 dated 31.5.2013 which was valid w.e.f. 1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 on payment of valid premiums. Further, it is an admitted fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 17.6.2013 and FIR NO.118 of 2013 was got registered by the complainant with P.S.Sadar, Khanna to this effect and thereafter, due intimation was given to the OP1 and the claim was lodged, which was duly registered and processed by the OP1. Further, it is a proved fact that Sh.R.P.Gupta of M/s R.P.Gupta & Company was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor by the OP1, who had inspected the vehicle of the complainant and after his thorough inspection, submitted his Motor Survey Report(Preliminary) dated 10.10.2013 Ex.R12 and thereafter, he had submitted his Motor Survey Report(Final) dated 27.11.2013 Ex.R5 with the OP1, vide which, he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,14,600/- on cash loss basis. It is also a proved fact on record that OP1 had got the investigation conducted from their investigator namely Sh.Prem Singh, who after his thorough investigation, submitted his investigations reports dated 13.11.2013 Ex.R18 and dated 6.12.2013 Ex.R17 and in their reports, he has concluded that on the basis of the circumstantial evidences, it can be said that on 17.8.2013, the Maruti D zire car No.PB-10-DF-0342 insured under above policy belonging to Mr.Arvinder Singh met with an accident and was brought to Swani Motors Services Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana for repairs. In this accident, the driver was son of insured who received multiple injuries and grandson of insured died. The accident is established on 17.8.2013 and own damage claim may be processed under terms and conditions of the policy subject to final survey report of the surveyor.

15.              The bone of contention between the parties is qua the validity of the insurance policy. As per the contention of the complainant that he has been getting the policy of the vehicle in question from OP2 since the date of its purchase by making its premium. Further, the complainant had got the policy renewed on 31.5.2013 from OP2 w.e.f.1.6.2013 to 31.5.2014 by paying the premium and had issued cheque bearing No.810453 dated 17.6.2013 for Rs.10,906/- of PNB, Ludhiana. On the other hand, there is specific contention of learned counsel for the OP2 that as the complainant was out of station and on his telephonic call, the cover note of the policy was issued on 31.5.2013 which was valid w.e.f.1.6.2013 till 31.5.2014. However, the premium was paid by the complainant vide his cheque No.810453 dated 17.6.2013 which was handed over to OP2 on 18.6.2013 and the same was got encashed on 19.6.2013. Though, the accident took place on 17.6.2013. However, till date the date of accident, the complainant had not paid the amount of premium, as such, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP1 as the complainant did not comply with the provision of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. Similar is the contention of the learned counsel for the OP1.

16.              Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CA, in which, he has specifically deposed that Ops have filed false written statements in order to escape from the liability . Infact, there is a delay on the part of the Ops from presentation of cheque. The complainant had given blank signed premium cheque without date to the OP1 and even otherwise, the accident in question had taken place at about 7:00 PM, in the evening in the area of P.S.Sadar Khanna on 17.6.2013.

17.              Perusal of the evidence of the OP2 reveals that the OP2 has tendered into evidence document Ex.R1/A i.e. the copy of cheque amounting to Rs.10,906/- which bears the Sr.No.810453 and is dated 17.6.2013 which itself speaks that there are two different writings written with different hands which can be seen with naked eyes. Further, OP2 has relied upon document Ex.R3/C i.e. copy of deposit slip which find mentioned the policy No.33233275, total premium of Rs.10,906/-, instrument type i.e. Cheque, instrument No.810453 and instrument date i.e. 31.5.2013 of Punjab National Bank, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana and this was presented on 18.6.2013. So, it appears from this document that though the cheque in question was presented in the account on 18.6.2013 but as per this slip, the cheque was dated 31.5.2013 and it also bears the seal of the bank having token into receiving of the same by the bank, meaning thereby that che        que was already in the custody of the Ops prior to its presentation while issuance of the cover note to the complainant.

18.              Further, evidence of the OP1 reveals that OP1 has furnished affidavit of Sh.Sunil Tuli, its Relationship Manager as Ex.RW1/A, in which, he has deposed in support of the defence plea taken by the insurance company and he has also deposed that the complainant had not paid the premium of the insurance policy to the OP1 at the time of alleged accident, so there was no contract at that time. The complainant has not made the compliance of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. He has further deposed that M/s R.P.Gupta and Company had submitted his survey report subject to terms and conditions of the policy and after receipt of the survey report, the officials of the OP1 had assessed the net loss of Rs.2,27,298/- which was actually payable to the complainant as per the terms and conditions and exception of the policy. The complainant had also submitted affidavit dated 25.1.2014 duly attested by Notary Public, vide which, the complainant had given his acceptance to receive Rs.2,27,548/- as full and final settlement. The said assessment of Rs.2,27,548/- was subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same was repudiated vide letter dated 20.2.2014.

19.              Perusal of this whole affidavit of this witness Sh.Sunil Tuli reveals that this witness has not uttered even a single word that the OP1 did not receive the blank cheque from the complainant as premium of the insurance cover note. Perusal of the document Ex.R3 which has been relied upon by the OP1 reveals that approval on sub-standard basis after deducting 20% of the claim amount vide approval letter dated 6.2.2014 by the Senior Divisional Manager Sh.P.K.Grover, Sh.G.K.Kumar, Relationship Managger, Ms.Resham Kaur, Admin.Officer and Sh.Akantik Mahajan, Admin.Officer was granted and thereafter, affidavit of the complainant was obtained in order to pay this amount in discharge of full and final settlement of this amount for Rs.2,27,298.53P on sub-standard basis. So, it can well be presumed that Op1 had come forwarded for the settlement of the claim with the complainant on sub-standard basis knowing well about the alleged fate of the policy. The record further reveals that if the complainant had not paid the premium, the insurance company has not taken the initiative to get the policy cancelled. Rather, they have approached the complainant for obtaining his consent for full and final settlement of his claim on sub-standard basis. So, it appears from the record that after settling the claim by the OP1 with the complainant, OP1 has resiled from the said settlement and did not make the payment of the settled amount to the complainant despite his best efforts, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP1. Further, we find force from the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments titled as Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Dharam Chand and others-2010 ACJ02659(S.C.), in which, it has been observed that the premium of cheque was received by the insurance company at 4:00 P.M. on 7.5.2008 and cover note issued in which it was mentioned that insurance would commence from 8.5.1998 and expire on 7.5.1999. Vehicle met with an accident at 8:30 P.M. on 7.5.1998 and insurance company seeks to disown its liability on the ground that accident took place before the commencement of the insurance. The Hon’ble Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court had held the insurance company liable to pay the claim because insurance must be deemed to have commenced from the time when cheque was received by the insurance company.

20.              In view of the above discussion, by allowing the complaint, we hereby direct the OP1 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report as well as on the basis of Approval Letter, to which, the complainant had given his consent and further, OP1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Further, OP2 is directed not to charge any amount on account of parking charges from the complainant as the claim of the complainant was not settled and paid by the OP1 i.e. insurance company. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of his order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                              Member                        President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.