Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/576

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Harjeet Singh Adv.

01 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 576 dated 13.12.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 01.11.2022.

 

Paramjit Singh aged about 44 years son of Shri Jagtar Singh, resident of VPO Khattran, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant 

•  

1. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Samrala, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Branch Manager.                                             
2. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Zonal Office at SCO 38, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager.
3. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Head office at 3, Middleton Street, Prafully Chandraset Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal-7000071.
4. M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd., SCO 12-13, Canal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Harjeet Singh, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-08-CP-1703 which was insured with the OPs vide policy No.401602/31/18/10002738 valid from 06.02.2019 to 05.02.2020. The said truck met with an accident on 10.07.2019 at Hassur, Tamilnadu whereby it got burnt when the truck was parked in TVS Motors authorized service agency, Krishnagiri Hassur, Tamilnadu. The estimated cost of the repair was more than Rs.15.50 Lacs. The vehicle is standing at the authorized service agency of Ashok Leyland  where a sum of Rs.400/- is being charged per day. The claim was lodged with the OPs with all the relevant documents but the OPs have refused to reimburse the claim and telephonically informed the complainant that the claim was not approved. When the complainant asked the OPs to reject the claim in writing, they refused to do so. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant sent various letters to OP1 to OP3, but no reply was given to the said letters. Even a legal notice dated 27.09.2019 served upon the OPs failed to evoke a positive response from them. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be made to pay a sum of Rs.15,70,000/- to the complainant along with parking charges of Rs.400/- per day and further the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, OP4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.11.2020.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the joint written statement filed by the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OPs, it was registered and processed. Mr. Katta. N. Rammohan, Surveyor and Loss assessor was deputed who inspected the vehicle, took photographs, collected documents and assessed the net loss of Rs.5,77,602/- on repair basis subject to terms and conditions of the policy and submitted final survey report dated 18.09.2019. The vehicle was not totally damaged as alleged by the complainant and the claim could not be released on total loss basis. After the receipt of the survey report, the OPs issued the registered letter dated 25.10.2019 to the complainant requesting him to submit certain documents i.e. goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges. The complainant was further asked to give permission for the repair of the vehicle to avoid any delay. It is further pledged that the OPs are ready to settle the claim on repair basis subject to verification of all requisite documents and subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is bound to supply the aforesaid documents but he has not supplied the same till date. The OPs have sent reply to the legal notice dated 30.10.2019 through Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate and even in the reply, the complainant was advised to supply the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 25.10.2019. Subsequently, the letter dated 27.11.2019 was also sent to the complainant requesting him to supply the documents and a final reminder dated 22.12.2019 was also given to the complainant. However, despite the aforesaid letters, the complainant neither supplied the documents nor has given consent for the repair of the vehicle. The vehicle is in a perfect repairable condition and the claim cannot be settled on total loss basis. The complainant himself is not getting the vehicle repaired and if any loss occurs to the vehicle due to non-repair of the vehicle, the OPs will not be responsible to pay the same. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                Along with the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs submitted affidavit  of Ms. Santosh Bhatoa, Senior Divisional Manager of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R49.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the act and conduct of the OPs in not reimbursing the claim is reprehensible and amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The OPs have not even cared to issue a repudiation letter rejecting the claim. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs are under an obligation to reimburse the claim of Rs.15,70,000/-, as claimed in the complaint.  

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 to OP3 has argued that the OPs are not at fault nor there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The counsel for OP1 to OP3 has further pointed out that the complainant was required to submit certain documents such as goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges vide letter dated 25.10.2019 but till date  the complainant has not submitted the said documents. Even subsequent reminders sent to the complainant vide letters dated 27.11.2019 and 22.12.2019 have failed to evoke a positive response from the OPs. So as far the submission of aforesaid documents are concerned, the counsel for OP1 to OP3 has further contended that in the absence of the requisite documents, which are very vital for processing of the claim, the claim could not be processed. The counsel for OP1 to OP3 has further contended that the complainant be directed to submit the documents upon which the OPs will process the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy.

9.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

10.              It is the definite case of the OPs, as stated in the written statement, that after the claim was lodged, Mr. Katta. N. Rammohan was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor in his report ex. R7 has assessed the loss at Rs.5,77,602/-. The report Ex. R7 prepared by the surveyor has not been challenged by the complainant on any ground. Apart from that, the complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any replication or rejoinder to controvert the averments made in the written statement.

11.              Secondly, the OPs have claimed that the complainant has not submitted certain documents such as the goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges. These documents were required from the complainant by the OPs vide letter Ex. R4 dated 25.10.2019. The Ops have further proved on record the subsequent reminders sent to the complainant on 27.11.2019, 10.12.2019 and 20.12.2019, the copies of which are Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and despite the reminders, the aforesaid documents have not been submitted by the complainant due to which the claim could not be processed or reimbursed. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the complainant is directed to submit the documents i.e. goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges with OP1 to OP3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after receipt of the documents, OP1 to OP3 shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy as well as surveyor’s report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit the documents i.e. goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges with OP1 to OP3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after receipt of the documents, OP1 to OP3 shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy as well as surveyor’s report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant However, there shall be no order as to costs. In case the claim is not dealt with by the OPs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant shall be at liberty to challenge the same. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Paramjit Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.                CC/19/576

Present:       Sh. Harjeet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for the OP1 to OP3.

                   OP4 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit the documents i.e. goods receipt/load challan, fire brigade copy/FIR, national permit and bill cash memo for repair and labour charges with OP1 to OP3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after receipt of the documents, OP1 to OP3 shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy as well as surveyor’s report within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant However, there shall be no order as to costs. In case the claim is not dealt with by the OPs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant shall be at liberty to challenge the same. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.