BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.110 of 2017

Date of Instt. 19.04.2017

Date of Decision: 17.07.2018

Harpal Singh aged 60 years S/o Ranjit Singh R/o Village Ganna Pind, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., BO-11, Mahavir Marg, Jalandhar.

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office at SCO No.332-334, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Chander Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. RS Arora, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing No.PB-08-CP-8105, Engine No.EYPZ108670, Chasis No.MB1HTYYC7EPYK3815 and the same was insured with the OPs. The OP No.1 is the Insurance Company from whom the complainant got insured his vehicle and the OP No.2 is the Head Office of the OP No.1. The complainant was earning his livelihood by plying the said vehicle. Copy of the RC is attached.

2. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 20.05.2016 and the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.3,56,961/- on the repair of the above said vehicle. Some of the repair work was done from different persons and some of the repair work was got done from the Global Auto Parts, Jalandhar, which is the authorized service station of the Ashoka Leyland. The complainant has also purchased parts of Rs.52,006/- from Arora Motor Store, vide bill dated 09.06.2016.

3. That after the accident, the officials of the OPs were duly informed and they have made the spot inspection and have assessed the damage. The complainant has completed all the formalities and have lodged a claim with the OP and has also provided the estimate of repair work, but till today, they have not reimbursed the same. The claim intimation made by authorized agent A. S. Sodhi is attached with this complaint and an other bills have been also attached. The complainant has also completed the formalities by filling Motor Insurance Claim Form and the same is also enclosed with this complaint, but till today, the OPs have not made the reimbursement of the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the said vehicle, despite the fact that the vehicle of the complainant was fully insured and the complainant has completed all the formalities as required by the OPs. Due to the illegal act and conduct and unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension and agony and the complainant has assessed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,56,961/- as reimbursement of the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the above said vehicle along with Rs.52,006/- as spare part bills and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed a reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint rather the complaint is totally vexatious and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum because the amount has been already reimbursed to the complainant on or before filing the present complaint i.e. 17.04.2017. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his vehicle and it is also not denied that the vehicle in question was met with an accident and it is also admitted that the complainant informed the OP and lodged the claim and accordingly, the survey was got conducted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 Copy of RC, Ex.C-2 Insurance Policy, Ex.C-3 Claim Intimation Form, Ex.C-4 Claim Intimation, Ex.C-5 Application for Motor Claim, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-14 Bills of Repair and Ex.C-15 Motor Insurance Claim Form, Ex.C-16 Estimate Report and Ex.C-17 Bills of Arora Motors and then evidence of the complainant is closed by order.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1-2/A along with document Ex.OP1-2/1 and then closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. From the over all circumstances as elaborated and envisaged in the complaint as well as its reply, are that the complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing No.PB-08-CP-8105 and same was got insured from the OP and during the insurance period, the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on 20.05.2016 and as per version of the complainant, he was earning his livelihood by plying the said vehicle, but this fact is not controverted or denied by the OP and further the complainant after getting repaired the vehicle, submitted a claim, but the same was not reimbursed by the OP and as such, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3,56,961/- as well as an other amount of Rs.52,006/- spare parts bill and compensation and litigation expenses.

9. The case of the complainant has been responded by the OP in the manner that the OP has already reimbursed the claim amount to the complainant on or before filing the present complaint i.e. on 17.04.2017 and in order to prove that the OP has reimbursed the amount, the OP has brought on the file affidavit of one Mohit Chawla, Assistant Manager of the OP Company, the same is Ex.OP1-2/A and statement of account of the bank showing that an amount of Rs.1,88,164/- has been credited in the account of the complainant.

10. Now question remains only why the OP has credited a less amount in the account of the complainant of the amount claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs.3,56,961/- as well as amount of spare parts bill Rs.52,006/-, for that the OP has not given any explanation in the written reply or in the affidavit, admittedly, the complainant submitted a Claim Intimation Ex.C-4, wherein the loss have been shown Rs.3,39,400/- and further the complainant has brought on the file rough estimate of the loss of the vehicle got assessed from A. S. Sodhi & Co., the same is Ex.C-16 and as per estimate, the amount is mentioned Rs.3,44,596/-, but the OP has paid much lower side amount to the complainant i.e. 1,88,164/-, if there is no explanation on the part of the OP, then why they have paid less amount to the demanded amount of the claim, then we find that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, for that act, the OPs are liable to pay compensation as well as remaining amount.

11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the compliant of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to reimburse the amount of the insurance claim as mentioned in the Claim Intimation Ex.C-4 i.e. Rs.3,39,400/- after deducting the already paid amount. The OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- for mental tension and harassment, to the complainant and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

17.07.2018 Member President