Punjab

Moga

CC/16/88

Jagsir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Parupkar Singh Sangha

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                      CC No. 88 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 11.04.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 31.08.2016

 

Jagsir Singh, aged about 44 years son of Karam Singh, resident of Village Khosa Kotla, PO Khosa Randhir, Tehsil & District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middleton Street, Post Box no.9229, Kolkata.

 

2.       The National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Link Road, Near Atam Park, Ludhiana

 

3.       The National Insurance Company Ltd, Moga, through its Branch Manager.

 

4.       Padam Motors Dhandari Kalan, District Ludhiana, Delhi Road, Opp. D.M.W Agency, Ludhiana.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Parupkar Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos.1 to 3.

                   Opposite party no.4 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middleton Street, Post Box no.9229, Kolkata and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. equal amount of the price of car bearing registration no. PB-29Q-7292, Chassis no.MEEAHBA40D1502087, Engine no.18242 Model 2013 i.e. insured vehicle. Further opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment suffered by complainant and Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit and proper be also granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-29Q-7292, Chassis No.MEEAHBA40D1502087, Engine no.18242. The complainant got insured said vehicle from the opposite party no.1, through it branch situated at Ludhiana, vide Insurance Policy Cover note no.401300/31/14/6100001892 valid for the period w.e.f. 22.09.2014 to 21.09.2015. At the time of selling insurance policy the opposite parties have considered the value of vehicle in question as Rs.5,00,000/- and opposite parties have charged Rs.15,110/- as insurance policy price. On 11.08.2015, when complainant was going to Moga from Talwandi on said vehicle, when he reached in Khukhrana Chowk, one unidentified truck struck the vehicle of the complainant and due to which vehicle turtle on the road and truck driver alongwith his vehicle run away from the spot. Due to said accident the vehicle of the complainant was fully damaged and in this regard a rapat no.33 dated 11.08.2015 was registered with policy of PS Sadar, Moga. It is submitted here that police has mentioned in the said rapat that the vehicle of the complainant was turtle in the fields due to clerical mistake. The complainant informed the opposite parties about the accident. As per directions of opposite party nos.1 to 3, the complainant parked said vehicle in the premises of opposite party no.4. The employees of insurance company have considered the said vehicle as fully damaged and in this regard the complainant lodged his claim with the opposite parties. But opposite parties have refused to pay the claim on the ground that in his claim complainant had mentioned that his car was turtle on the road, but in the DDR it has been mentioned that said vehicle was turtle in the fields. The complainant requested the opposite parties that said mistake is clerical one and the same occurred only due to mistake of police officer. But insurance company has not considered the request of complainant. The complainant also approached to the police and requested them to make correction in the DDR, but police officials refused to make correction the same by saying that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. for making correction in the rapat. The said vehicle had already been insured by the complainant and as such, the complainant is entitled to the amount of insurance. The complainant approached the Ludhiana Branch of insurance company many a times with a request to pay the amount of insurance to him, but the officials of said branch put off the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay the said amount to the complainant. Due to negligence on the part of opposite parties, the car of the complainant has become useless and complainant has suffered a lot. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint being pre-mature is not maintainable. The complainant also being false, self contradictory, frivolous, vague and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs; that the complainant has not come with clean hands. He has not disclosed the entire true facts. The complainant has also suppressed the material facts from this Forum as well as from the answering opposite parties. The alleged claim of the complainant appears doubtful; that no deficient services have been rendered to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The claim of the complainant has been duly entertained and still being investigated. The independent surveyor has already been appointed to investigate and survey the extent and genuineness of alleged loss; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct. The complainant himself has not been cooperating with the above said independent surveyor. In fact, there is a self contradiction between the version of complainant himself and the DDR submitted by him. As per DDR got recorded by the complainant with the Police Station Sadar, Moga, the vehicle was turned turtle in the fields near Khukhrana Chowk on the way of Moga to Talwandi Bhai, whereas as per the version of complainant, the car was turned turtle on the road. On the basis of said difference of both the versions, the appointed surveyor has issued many letters to complainant either to get amended the above said DDR or to explain the truthful circumstances with regard to alleged accident, because it is apparent on the face of record that the damage occurred to the vehicle in question could not be occurred due to turning turtle of the vehicle in the fields as alleged by the complainant. The complainant neither get amended the DDR nor the complainant explained the exact cause of accident till today nor he gave any reply to the letters of the surveyor and instead of cooperation, the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It is submitted here that no spot survey was got conducted by the complainant and the complainant did not give any chance to the insurance company to verify/inspect the alleged loss immediate after the alleged accident. On merits, it is submitted that the alleged version of the complainant as to facts of the alleged accident is self contradictory with the version narrated by him at the time of giving statement to the police for recording DDR, which raises doubts about the genuineness of the alleged claim. However, the alleged claim of the complainant was immediately entertained on the receipt of information and an independent surveyor M/s J. Lal & Co. was appointed who has already submitted his Interim Survey Report and however, the final survey report is still awaited. The said surveyor has been still investigating the matter and the complainant was served with two letters by the surveyor to explain the abovesaid contradictions, but the complainant inspite of receiving said letters and having verbal request did not cooperate with the surveyor as well as answering insurance company to decide the alleged claim properly. The different versions as well as hostile conduct of the complainant itself raise suspicion over the legitimacy of alleged claim. Further the all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.4 duly served, but despite service of notice, none appeared on its behalf, as such, opposite party no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte.
5.                In order to prove the case, complainant Jagsir Singh tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Kamaljit Singh, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Ex. Ex.OP1 to 3/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP1 to 3/2 to Ex.OP1 to 3/7 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that being owner of car bearing registration no.PB29Q-7292, complainant got insured the same with Ops for sum of Rs.5 lacs and paid premium of Rs15,110/-. Said policy was valid from 22.09.2014 to 21.09.2015. It is further submitted that on 11.08.2015, an unidentified truck struck down his insured car and due to this, his car turned turtle on the road and driver of said truck ran away from the spot alongwith his vehicle. In that accident, car of complainant was fully damaged and then, complainant got recorded rapat no. 33 dated 11.08.2015 to this effect and also informed OPs regarding this fact. It is further submitted that in rapat recorded by Police, it was written that car of complainant turned turtle in fields due to some clerical mistake. Thereafter, as per directions of OPs 1 to 3, complainant parked the said vehicle with OP-4 and now, OP-4 is asking rent for parking the said vehicle. Complainant submitted the claim with Ops, but they repudiated the same on ground that complainant has mentioned that his car turned upside down on road, but in DDR it is written that it happened in fields. Complainant requested that all this is due to clerical error, but they did not agree. Complainant approached to police and requested them to make correction, but they also refused to do so on the ground that there is no provision in Cr.P.C.to make any correction. As the accident occurred within validity period therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance claim. Action of OPs in repudiating the claim of complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9.                To controvert the allegations of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OPs averred that complaint in hand premature and is frivolous and vague and is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi to file the same. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has concealed the true facts from this Forum. It is brought before the Forum that facts given by complainant in DDR are contradictory to those given by him during intimation. As per version of Complainant, his car turned turtle on road, but in DDR it is mentioned that said car turned turtle in fields. Surveyor of Ops issued many letters to complainant to get amend DDR or to explain the true circumstances regarding said accident, but complainant did not do so. It is averred that no spot survey of vehicle in question was conducted and complainant did not give any chance to OPs to verify the alleged loss immediately after the accident. It is further averred that claim of complainant is being investigated to find the genuineness of alleged loss. All the other allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.              We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he is owner of car which was insured with OP-1 to 3 and during the insurance period the said car met with an accident. He got recorded a DDR with police and duly informed the OPs regarding the incident who appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle and considered it to be total loss but the OPs rejected his claim on the ground that in the claim form, he submitted that his car turned turtle on road but in DDR it is mentioned as the car turned turtle in the fields and rejected his claim on false and flimsy ground.

11.              In reply the OPs admitted that the car in question of the complainant was insured with them which met with an accident and complainant informed them regarding incident. They admitted that they appointed Surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle who submitted his report to them but they submitted that the claim of the complainant is doubtful as there is contradiction in DDR lodged with police and information given to Insurance company, in the information given to Ops complainant mentioned that his car turned on road but in DDR it is mentioned as said car in turtle in fields. The Surveyor issued letter to complainant to explain the true circumstances, but he did not do so. So the OPs have not paid his claim. The counsel for the complainant argued that actually his car hit by unidentified truck and turtle on road and fully damaged as detailed in the claim form. The complainant correctly mentioned this fact, but due to clerically mistake in the DDR police official mentioned that the car turned turtle in the field which is only a clerical mistake. The complainant contacted to police authorities to made necessary correction in the DDR, but they refused on the ground that there is no provision in Cr.PC for making correction in the in DDR. Admittedly the car insured with Ops insurance company and met with an accident during the insurance period and got damaged in the said accident, the insurance company appointed Surveyor to assess the loss to the said vehicle who submitted his report to insurance company which is produced as Ex OP-1to 3/6 in his report the surveyor assess the loss to the vehicle as total loss, the only plea of the OPs for not paying the insurance claim is that in the information to the insurance company it is mentioned that the car turned turtle at road in the accident whereas as DDR with police it is mentioned that car turned turtle in the fields.

12.              The accident is not disputed. The loss to the vehicle is also not disputed. Now, we are unable to understand when the accident is admitted and loss is admitted then what is the difference if the car is turtle on road or in fields. We are observed that at the time of selling the insurance policies the company allured the customer with many tactics but in turn when time of paying compensation, they decline genuine claim of the same on false excuses, the insurance companies are only interested to earning the premiums and found the ways and means to decline the genuine claim of the consumers.

13.              From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that opposite party nos.1 to 3 wrongly and illegally withheld the insurance claim of the complainant on the false ground which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The opposite party nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay the insurance claim of complainant amounting to Rs.3,49,000/- on net salvage total loss basis with RC as assessed by the Surveyor vide his Survey report Ex OP-1 to 3/6 along with interest @ 9% PA from 11.04.2016 i.e. filing of the present complaint till final realization. Further the opposite party nos.1 to 3 is burdened to pay Rs 10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by complainant and Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed. Opposite party nos.1 to 3 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 31.08.2016.

 

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)         (Vinod Bala)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                     Member                President