| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA RBT/Consumer Complaint No.338 of 2018 Date of institution: 21.5.2018 Date of Decision: 18.05.2022 Narinder Singh Son of Late S. Harkishan Singh, resident of House No.17/1360, Azad Nagar, Near Dhuri Line, Ward No.46, Ludhiana ….Complainant Versus
National Insurance Company, Bansal Complex, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana ……..Opposite Party Complaint under Consumer Protection Act Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President. Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member Present: Sh. Narinder Singh, complainant in person Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate, for OP
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President Order The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant insured the vehicle Alto Car LX bearing registration No.PB-10-CL-1360 owned by Narinder Singh son of Harkishan Singh, resident of House No.1360, Azad Nagar, Dhuri Line, Ludhiana with the National Insurance Company vide policy No.3510103115613701281, which was valid from 23.7.2015 to 22.7.2016 and the same was damaged in accident and at the time of accident, only one person in the car of Manpreet Singh, who drive the car at the time of accident and had miraculous escape with minor scratches. The insurance company earlier issued an undervalued and wrongly named cheque in the name of Manpreet Singh. Due to wrong name and amount mentioned on the cheque, the national insurance company promised to issue a new cheque with the correct name and account but no new cheque has been issued till date. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:- - To issue a cheque of full value of the damaged car Alto LX immediately along with interest on the name of Narinder Singh (complainant)
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant in the interest of justice.
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to be also granted to the complainant in the interest of justice.
- Upon notice, the O.P. has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present; that the complainant is not coming to the Commission with clean hands; that the complaint cannot be decided by the Commission in summary manner. On merits, it is stated that after receipt of the intimation letter dated 15.6.2016, Mr. Vikas Sharma, and IRDA approved loss assessor, valuer, surveyor was appointed as surveyor. The said surveyor had personally inspected the car in question and took the photographs and other documents and thereafter prepared his report dated 23.1.2017 under his signatures and submitted the same with the insurance company. After receipt of the said report, and after scrutinizing the documents placed in claim file and after due application of mind by the officials of the OP, the mode of assessment of loss was discussed with the complainant in presence of surveyor in question, the complainant vide its letter dated 28.12.2016 handed over, to aforesaid surveyor has informed the OP that I do not want to get the vehicle repaired and opted for mode of settlement on repair basis and had given the consent that the loss be settled on net of salvage basis. The complainant had further stated in letter dated 28.12.2016 had given the consent for valuation of accidental value of Rs.37500/- without RC and further informed the OP that he will produce the RC of the vehicle in question after cancellation to the OPs. Sh. Vikas Sharma, was further appointed to get the verification of the Driving License of Sh. Manpreet Singh son of Narinder Singh and registration certificate of vehicle No.PB-10-CL-1360 from the office of licensing authority, Ludhiana. The surveyor moved an application with the concerned authorities, who after due verification of the records had submitted their reports on application so moved by the surveyor. After the receipt of the reports of surveyor, OP informed the complainant that on the basis of recommendation of surveyor and as per the consent given by the complainant the competent authority had agreed for mode of settlement on net of salvage basis without RC and had called upon the complainant to submit the required documents for final approval of the claim. The documents sought for were the material documents required for processing of the claim and even the surveyor vide his email dated 29.3.2017 and 6.4.2017 had called upon the complainant to supply the aforesaid requisite documents but the complainant has not submitted the documents till date. The claim of the complainant was closed due to non submission of the material documents. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied by the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- Accident is admitted, claim is also admitted. At one point of time, the parties are revealed from the record having concurred on salvage of mode of payment Insurance amount. Now while the complainant claims that at one point of time, the OP has issued a cheque of the due amount in favour of the complainant, however, the same was returned due to some error, which was to be reissued to the complainant but was not issued. The complainant claims that amount. However, the complainant has not been able to prove the same. On the other side, the OP admits that it was ready to make the payment salvage mutually agreed between the parties, but the payment could not made due to non submission of mandatorily required documents by the complainant. At the end of the day, the parties had mutually agreed for salvage of Rs.67493/- but the payment could not be allegedly made due to timely non submission of mandatory documents.
- OP has submitted some authorities in his favour claiming that he claimant is now entitled. However, the facts of the authorities referred are distinguishable from the present case and hence are not applicable to the present case. Rather, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the claim of the consumer cannot be rejected on technical ground of non submission of documents. The arguments of the OP on the point of limitation also does not behold as it has failed to prove how the case is hit by it.
- In the light of above discussion, the complainant is entitled Rs.67493/- mutually agreed amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till its realization. As the complainant himself did not comply with the requirement of submission of required documents, he is not entitled for the remaining reliefs claimed by him. Therefore, the present complaint stands allowed partly. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
Announced May 18, 2022 (Ranjit Singh) President (Ranvir Kaur) Member CC No.338 of 2018 - Sh. Narinder Singh, complainant in person
Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Adv. for OPs Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed partly. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room. May, 18 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) | |
