PRESENT: Sh.Surinder Gandhi, Adv. for Complainant.

         Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OP No.1.

           Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.2.

           OP No. 3 Ex-parte.

           Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. Proxy for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OP No.4.

           OP No.5 Deleted.          

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant had purchased a new Indica Turbo Car bearing Chassis No. PG6460, Engine No. 6834 from OP No. 4, on 26.12.2006, and got it insured from OP No. 2, through OP No.3, by paying a sum of Rs.14,253/- in cash, upon which OP No. 3 issued a Cover Note No. 50909878, dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure C-1). The vehicle was got registered with the Registering Authority, Panchkula vide Regn. No. HR-03-H-3558. Since the old Policy was valid upto 25.12.2007, therefore, on 26.12.2007, the Petitioner got the aforesaid vehicle insured with OP no. 1, vide Policy No. 400100/31/07/6100008312, dated 26.12.2007, valid upto 25.12.2008. It was averred that on 05.01.2008, when the Complainant was coming from Sector 17, Chandigarh to Panchkula, near the light point of Sector 17-18, a vehicle which was going ahead of the vehicle of the Petitioner, suddenly applied the brake, consequently, the vehicle of the Complainant collided with the car from rear side of that car and his car was damaged from the front side. He informed OP No. 1 and submitted claim form, pursuant to which, OP No.1 appointed one Mr. Rajneesh Bhardwaj, Surveyor to inspect the vehicle, who inspected the same and submitted his report Annexure C-2. OP No.4 repaired the vehicle and delivered the same to the Complainant on 12.01.2008, after receiving the payment of Rs.5870/- in cash against the total bill of Rs.19,073/- and after obtaining signatures on the bills. It was told that the balance amount of Rs.13,203/- shall be charged by them from OP No.1 – the insurer of the vehicle, which the latter refused to make. Thereafter, OP No. 4 called the Complainant to their premises on the pretext of verification of chassis number of the vehicle for claim and on 25.3.2008, when he took the vehicle to their premises, they forcibly impounded the same and refused to release the same unless the balance payment of repair was made to them. The matter was also informed to the Police, but to no avail. Having no other alternative, he had to shell out another sum of Rs.13,200/- to get his vehicle released (Annexure C-4). Thereafter, he approached OP No. 1 for getting the claim, but it refused to entertain the claim, saying that the Complainant had got no Insurance Policy of the vehicle from the OP No.2 for the period 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2007 and had claimed No Claim Bonus from the OP No.1. It was also averred that thereafter, he approached the OP No.2, which supplied him copy of the Policy (Annexure C-5), which was valid upto 30.01.2008, instead of 25.12.2007. It was alleged that OP No. 2 never intimated him that the cheque of the OP No. 3 had bounced and the OP No. 2 made the policy only on 31.01.2007, when the payment had been made by the OP No.3, which was valid upto 30.01.2008.  Therefore, assuming that his policy was valid upto 25.12.2007, the Complainant got it renewed from OP No.1 on 26.12.2007. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of bill of Rs.19,073/- plus interest @18%, till realization, besides litigation cost of Rs.22,000/-. The Complainant has also claimed Rs.1.00 lac to be paid to him by each of OP 1 to 4 on account of deficiency in service & humiliation and loss of reputation & dignity etc.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs No. 1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that insurance policy in question was issued to the Complainant, which was valid from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. In fact, the Complainant got his vehicle insured with both OP 1 & 2 for the same period. However, on receipt of intimation regarding the accident from the Complainant, on 7.1.2008, Sh. Rajneesh Bhardwaj, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed to inspect & assess the loss in question, who gave his Survey Report dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure C-3), wherein he assessed the net liability of the OP to the tune of Rs.15,487/- after deducting the policy amount under the excess clause and the depreciation as per the terms & conditions of the Policy (Annexure R-1). Value of salvage was assessed to the tune of  Rs.280/-. It was denied that the vehicle in question was delivered to the Complainant on making cash payment of Rs.5870/- against the total of  Rs.19,073/-.  It was also denied that it was told by OP No. 4 to the Complainant that the remaining amount would be charged from the answering OP. It was further pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on its part as the Complainant got the vehicle in question insured with OP No. 1, as well as with OP No.2 for the same period. Through his letter dated ‘Nil’ (Annexure R-3), he chose to get the reimbursement of the claim from the OP No. 2, therefore, all the papers of the claim, along with the Survey Report, was forwarded to the OP No. 2. The same was done as per his request and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      OP No. 2 in its reply, admitted that the policy has been issued by the Bank/Insurance Company and the policy coverage was from 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2007. It was pleaded that no claim was lodged with them at the time of the accident or till date and hence, no Surveyor was appointed and the claim was not processed by it. No documents whatsoever, were provided to the answering OP. It was submitted that OP No. 3 was not their agent. The company was not aware as to by whom the cheque for payment of insurance premium was issued. The company does not accept cash payments. As the premium for Cover Note (Annexure C-1) was not received by it, therefore, the said policy was cancelled. Subsequently, a fresh policy Annexure C-5 was issued on receipt of payment of premium from the Complainant. It is denied for want of knowledge regarding payment of any cash having been paid by the Complainant to OP No. 3 who is not an employee of OP No.2. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part as no claim was lodged with them and there was no opportunity for the OP to make payment to the said claim, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      OP No. 3 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, he was proceeded against exparte.

6]      In its reply OP No. 4, pleaded that it had no nexus with the other OPs and cannot be held liable for anything wrong done by them. It was admitted that the Complainant approached OP No.4 for accidental repairs. The Complainant had not passed over any of the alleged insurance amount to OP No. 4. However, OP No. 4 had come to know that the cheque issued towards the premium of Annexure C-1 was dishonoured and the said Policy was, thus, not in existence for the said period and any “No Claim Bonus” could not be claimed on the basis of Annexure C-1. But the issue of claiming No Claim Bonus (NCB) was entirely with OP no. 1 to 3 and OP No.4 has nothing to do with the said matter. It was submitted that OP NO. 4 assessed the losses to the extent of Rs.69,769.52 (Annexure R-4/1). Against the estimate, it received instructions for carrying out repairs to the extent of Rs.19,073/- and accordingly bill dated 12.01.2008 was presented for payment (Annexure R-4/2). Out of the said bill amount, the Complainant paid differential amount of Rs.5,870/- and assured  that OP No. 1 would pay the balance directly to OP No. 4, otherwise, he would pay the same, on demand. It was admitted that OP No. 1 had not paid the insurance claim of the Complainant to OP No. 4, upon which it informed the Complainant that OP No. 1 had not made the payment, so he should perform his obligation of clearing the remaining payment. It was asserted that it had not forcefully or otherwise impounded the vehicle of the Complainant, as alleged. Any force had not taken place and OP No.4 demanded the balance amount as per its legal rights and without any implication, the Complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs.13,200/- to OP No.4, without any protest and to discharge his lawful liability. The allegations of impounding and releasing of the vehicle were false and baseless. While pleading that the dispute regarding payment/non-payment of the insurance claim was between the OP No. 1 to 3 and the OP No. 4 was an unnecessary party to the present complaint, all other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

7]      On a separate statement given by the learned counsel for the Complainant to the effect that he does not have any claim against OP No. 5, the name of OP No. 5 was ordered to be deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 27.05.2008.

8]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

9]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OPs No. 1, 2 & 4, OP No.3 being ex-parte and OP No.5 being deleted for the array of parties. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased a new Indica Turbo Car, bearing Chassis No. PG6460, Engine No. 6834 from OP No. 4 and having the same insured from OP No. 2 through OP No. 3 by paying a sum of Rs.14,253/- in cash, as premium, upon which OP No. 3 issued a Cover Note bearing No. 50909878, dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure C-1), have all been admitted. The Complainant got the Insurance Policy renewed from OP No. 1 for the period 26.12.2007, valid upto 25.12.2008. It is also a fact that the Car in question met with an accident on 05.01.2008 and suffered damage from the front side, thereafter, he submitted the claim form with OP No. 1, who appointed Mr. Rajneesh Bhardwaj, Surveyor to inspect the vehicle and the said Surveyor submitted his Survey Report. In the meantime, the Complainant got his Car repaired from OP No. 4 and the total bill for the repairs came to Rs.19,073/-, out of which he paid Rs.5,870/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.13,203/- was expected to be paid by the Insurer of the vehicle, but the same was not paid by the Insurance company to OP No. 4. As per the Complainant, he was called by OP No. 4 to its premises on 25.03.2008, for verification of the Chassis No. for settling the insurance claim and when he took the vehicle there, the vehicle was impounded by OP No.4 and the same was released only after he paid a sum of Rs.13,200/- i.e. the balance sum payable for the repair bill of Rs.19,073/-. 

ii] The only dispute between the parties i.e. the Complainant on the one hand and OP No. 1 & 2 on the other is that on the date of accident i.e. 05.01.2008, there was dual insurance of the vehicle i.e. the insurance Cover Note with OP No. 2 was initially issued for the period 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2007. The period of insurance was subsequently corrected to 31.01.2007 to 30.1.2008, instead of 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2007, on account of the fact that the Cheque of OP No. 3 had bounced and OP No. 2 issued the Policy only on 31.01.2007, on receipt of premium amount, which was valid upto 30.01.2008. In the meantime, the Complainant on the assumption that his Policy was valid only upto 25.12.2007, got it renewed from OP No. 1 on 26.12.2007, for the period 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. As such, on the date of accident, two Insurance Policies for the same vehicle were in existence from two different Insurance Companies.

iii] In the written statement/reply submitted by OP No. 1, it has been clarified that the Complainant through his letter dated “nil” (Annexure A-3) chose to get the reimbursement of the claim from OP No. 2 instead of OP No.1 and, therefore, all the papers of the insurance claim, along with the Survey Report were forwarded by OP No. 1 to OP No. 2 and the same was done as per his own request. In the letter (Annexure A-3) addressed to OP No. 1, the Complainant has stated that his previous insurance policy with OP No. 2 was effective from 31.1.2007 to 30.1.2008 and, therefore, the accident in question pertains to their Policy, requesting further to forward his claim to OP No. 2. In the second letter, addressed by the Complainant to OP No. 1, he requested the company to recover no claim bonus granted by them, because the claim was lodged in January; whereas, insurance was done in December. All this goes to prove that there is no deficiency in service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1.

iv] During the course of oral arguments, OP No. 2 pointed out that it was not their Policy to accept cash payments and, therefore, the Insurance Policy for the Car was only issued when proper payment through Cheque was received from the Complainant. It also came out that the Complainant has not so far lodged any claim with OP No. 2. As a matter of fact, OP No. 2 was quite willing and ready to make payment of the claim as per the Survey Report, provided the Complainant lodged a proper claim with them. The Complainant was repeatedly asked by the Forum to produce any proof or evidence that he had ever lodged any insurance claim in writing with OP No. 2. The Complainant clearly failed to produce any such document in support of his case that he had lodged his claim with OP No. 2, and that the same was not paid or refused by them.

v]  So far as OP No. 4 is concerned, it is stated in the written statement/reply that the loss was assessed by it to the extent of Rs.69,769.52P, but it received instructions for carrying out repairs to the extent of Rs.19,073/- only and accordingly, it carried out the required jobs of repairs and presented a bill for Rs.19,073/- on 12.01.2008 (Annexure R-4/2). The Complainant made part payment of Rs.5,870/- in cash to OP No. 4 and assured that OP No. 1 would pay the balance amount directly to OP No. 4, otherwise he himself would pay the same on demand. Since no payment was made by OP No. 1, the amount was demanded from the Complainant and the same was paid by him without any protest and the same was done only to discharge his lawful liability. OP No. 4 says that it had not used any force or coercion while recovering the said amount from the Complainant and that the Car of the Complainant was never impounded by them.     

vi] During further arguments, even OP No. 1 said that it, too, was willing to pay the insurance claim amount, as per Survey Report, provided the Complainant withdrew his earlier letters written to it and files a fresh claim with the Company, so that the same claim may not be paid by two Companies.  There is no document on record not even a shred of evidence showing that the Complainant has ever lodged any fresh claim with OP No. 1 either and, therefore, OP No. 1 is not liable to pay any such claim.

10]     As per the above said detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that the Complainant has not been able to bring forth any tenable case in his favour. As a matter of fact, he himself has created a lot of confusion and mess by obtaining two insurance policies against the same car, for the same period of insurance. However, he himself requested OP No. 1 to transfer his case of insurance claim to OP No. 2 and subsequently, he never approached OP No. 2 for settlement of his claim. He only orally stated that when he took the papers to OP No. 2, they refused to entertain the same and returned it unpaid. But, there is no proof or any kind of evidence/ letter/ correspondence, showing that the Complainant had ever gone to OP No. 2 and submitted the required documents for settlement of the insurance claim and that the same was refused by them. Hence, he has no case at all. As such, the present complaint has been found to be baseless, devoid of any merit and carries no substances or weight. It is also beyond doubt that there is neither any deficiency of service nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, it clearly deserves rejection. We, therefore, dismiss the present complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs. 

11]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16.12.2009                                      

‘Dutt’