Complainant Mangat Masih through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to make payment of Rs.2,26,456/- i.e. the claim amount with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. w.e.f. date of filing the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for the harassment and mental agony caused to him by the opposite party alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the lawful owner of the vehicle ALTO 800 LX/Maruti ALTO 800/LX BS IV bearing registration No.PB-02CH-5221, Engine No.5187553. He obtained policy No.35101031156136707160 w.e.f. 24.4.2015 to 23.4.2016 from the opposite party. On 25.11.2015 he went to meet her daughter who is married to John Ray son of Jagir Khokhar resident of Prem Nagar Boharanwala Batala. The vehicle was parked in the plot situated at the backside of the house of Jagir Khokhar son of Nayamat Masih Caste Christian, Batala. However some fodder was lying in the plot. During the night of 25.11.2015 and 26.11.2015 the cracker were being used by the public for celebration of the Marriage Anniversary of Sh.Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Some crackers landed on the fodder lying in the plot which caught the fire. The fire further extended and ALTO Car came in the range of fire and also caught the fire due to which the loss was caused to the ALTO Car. Rapat was lodged by aforesaid Sh.Jagir Khokhar to P.S.Civil Lines, Batala vide DDR No.22 dated 26.11.2015 was registered. Due to the fire the Car was totally damaged and he lodged the claim of Rs.2,26,456/- i.e. the insured value of the vehicle in question with the opposite party as the insurance was operative on the date of mis-happening/fire accident. He lodged a claim for Rs.2,26,456/- with the opposite party within the stipulated period and completed all the formalities as per the instructions and directions of the opposite party. The opposite party has repudiated his claim vide letter dated 6.4.2016 on the false and flimsy grounds. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed and the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. On merits, it was submitted that Mangat Masih has hatched a criminal conspiracy to take pecuniary advantage from the opposite party by preparing various fake documents and by adopting fraudulent methods without proper legal procedure. The vehicle number PB-02-CH-5221 is in the possession of Mr.Johan Raj, resident of Batala who is the son-in-law of the insured and he was given this vehicle as a gift by the insured in the marriage as dowry. The alleged loss has been reported to have taken place on the intervening night of 25th and 26th November 2015. The nature and cause of loss is reported due to stray cracker causing the fire to the insured vehicle and in view of the details given above in the report the nature and cause of loss is totally unconvincing. The claimants are not able to provide any convincing document to establish their claim. The insured is trying to take the shelter and benefit of the insurance policy to grab undue compensation from the insurers. Actually, after intimation by the complainant to the opposite party, the opposite party appointed Sanjay Sarin Surveyor and Loss Assessor Batala for spot survey report. The Sanjay Sarin submitted his spot survey report on 26.11.2015 to the opposite party. The Sanjay Sarin Surveyor and Loss Assessor Batala also submitted his motor interim survey report on 22.01.2016 assessing net loss of Rs.1,89,000/- to the vehicle. The opposite party also deputed S.A. Investigating and consulting Agency Pathankot to investigate the abovesaid alleged fire loss. The S.A. Investigating and consulting Agency Pathankot submitted his detailed investigation report on 24.03.2016 and recommended to the opposite party to repudiate the claim. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of the opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.P-2 and Ex.OP27 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP insurer’s ‘repudiation’ dated 06.04.2016 (Ex.C2/Ex.OP2) of the complainant’s fire-accident claim of 08.01.2016 (Ex.OP25) on the simple ground of non-reply to insurer’s/investigator’s queries vide letters Ex.C7/ Ex.OP5 & Ex.OP6 of 1st & 25th March’ 2016, respectively; besides the non-satisfactory clarifications as made out to the OP investigator as advised vide his mail of 29.03.2016; whereas, we find that the said queries Ex.C7/Ex.OP5 etc stand duly replied vide the complainant’s letter Ex.C8 dated 26.03.2016 and accompanying certificate Ex.C9.
7. We, further find that the OP insurers have simply based its ‘claim-repudiation’ on the bald statements (sans any cogent evidence) as made out by their designated investigator in his report Ex.OP7 dated 24.03.2016 (duly supported by exhibits Ex.OP8 to Ex.OP19) but not accompanied by the requisite deposition etc. There has been no evidence of adverse ‘deliberate-damage’ (worth its name) available on the records of the present proceedings. Further, the police DDR # 22 of 26.11.2015 at the Civil Lines PS Simble, Batala confirm the loss being caused by the fire-incident. It is none of the complainant’s fault if the police authorities did not find it a fit case for further investigations. Moreover, if the investigator or for that matter the insurers were so sure of ‘deliberate-damage’ they were at liberty to lodge police complaint/ FIR for detailed investigations etc. However, presently we find that the insurers have un-necessarily deferred/delayed the settlement of a valid claim on arbitrary and flimsy grounds and that rakes them up for any adverse statutory award under the Act.
8. We, finally find that the OP insurers’ act of withholding of ‘settlement’ of present insurance claim on this very count alone and causing further ‘delay’ in communicating its ‘repudiation’ to the complainant does amount to ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with adoption of ‘unfair trade practice’ and that certainly holds the OP insurers liable to an adverse statutory ‘award’ under the applicable statute.
9. In the light of the all above, we find that the OP insurers have indeed infringed the consumer rights of the present complainant and thus ORDER them to settle and pay him the impugned insurance claim but in terms of the Surveyor’s Final Report cum terms of the applicable insurance policy besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
October 27, 2016 Member.
*MK*
