Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/210

Randeep Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Girish Anmol Sood Adv.

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 210 dated 06.05.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 15.12.2022.

 

Randeep Kaushal son of Shri Ashwani Kaushal, resident of House No.688, Sector 33, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office at Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office No.III, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana-141003 through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Girish Anmol Sood, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that complainant is the owner of vehicle/truck bearing No.PB-10-ES-9621 which was insured with the opposite parties vide policyNo.404501/31/17/6300000099 w.e.f 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018.  On 28.05.2017, the said truck met with an accident near Transport Nagar, Ludhiana and the truck was badly damaged. Intimation of the accident was given to the opposite parties. The complainant also informed the police of Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana regarding the accident and damage to the vehicle vide DDR No.28 dated 30.05.2017. The opposite parties told the complainant to repair the truck. The complainant got the said truck repaired from Avtar Singh, Devinder Singh Diesel Motor Works, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana and the parts were purchased from different parties. The complainant spent Rs.4,60,000/- on the repair of the truck. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the documents and lodged the claim with the opposite parties and requested the opposite parties to pay the amount spent on repair but the opposite parties  continued to linger on the matter in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. The opposite parties has rendered deficiency in service due to which the complainant suffered mental tension, pain, agony and also suffered on account of non-payment of the claim. The complainant is entitled to Rs.4,60,000/- i.e. repair and purchase of parts of the vehicle along with interest @12% per annum along with Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered mental harassment, agony and is entitled to compensation. The complainant has hence the complaint whereby the complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties  to pay Rs.4,60,000/- as repair charges of the vehicle along with interest @12% per annum from 28.05.2017 and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency of services on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.22,000/- as legal expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the compliant is barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Further the complaint is not maintainable. It is averred that immediately on receipt of the claim vide intimation letter dated 02.06.2017, it was duly registered, entertained and processed.

                   The complainant had obtained an insurance policy No.404501/31/17/6300000099 valid from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018 from the opposite parties  in respect of the vehicle bearing No.PB-10-ES-9621. It is further submitted that the insurance policy is a contract itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and nothing can be added or subtracted out of the said insurance policy.

                   Sh. Manish Kapila, Licensed IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessors of Ludhiana was appointed as spot surveyor who personally inspected the spot, took photographs and prepared his Motor (Spot) Survey Report dated 14.06.2017 and submitted the same with the opposite parties clearly stating that “date of accident is 28.05.2017 and spot survey was informed on 31.05.2017, so the vehicle was not on the place of accident (spot). As per insured the truck was removed from the spot place due to heavy rush of traffic and was taken to near to insured office premises.”

                   M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. an IRDA Licensed and approved Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Valuer of Ludhiana was appointed as spot surveyor who had inspected the vehicle, took photographs and other documents and prepared interim report dated 03.06.2017 and motor final survey report dated 14.09.2017 and submitted the same to the opposite parties with remarks under the head Re-inspection and Remarks as under:-

Re-inspection

We have assessed the loss on the basis of damages caused to the vehicle. In spite of repeated requests the insured failed to provide final bills of repair and show us the repaired vehicle along with salvage. Hence the insurers are requested to get the vehicle reinspect before finalizing the claim.

Remarks:

In the spot report the surveyor mistakenly written as date of DDR as 03.05.2017 instead of 30.05.2017. There is no column about third party loss in the accident. He is silent about this fact.

The police report dated 30.05.2017 was lodged by Shri Sher Singh. In the DDR Mr. Sher Singh stated that he is the owner of the vehicle and again stated that he has a driver Sher Singh on the vehicle who was driving the vehicle and he was sitting onside and then at Transport Nagar cut the vehicle hit into another vehicle and again stated that there was no causalities or material loss and the statement was signed by Shri Sher Singh. Nothing has been mentioned about third party vehicle. On going through the damages caused to the vehicle, in our opinion the vehicle might have with a speed hit into other vehicle. There is also possibility of material loaded in the vehicle as the impact goes up to left side lar of the load body. As the accident happened on 28.05.2017 and spot surveyor conducted the spot survey after three days i.e. on 31.05.2017 and also not on actual site of accident as the vehicle was removed from accidental place to his own desirable place. He also failed to show the actual site of accident tosspot surveyor. The insured did not provide details of third party vehicle which might have sustained damages.

There might have injuries to the driver and cleaner of the vehicle as the front portion and cabin sustained severe damages.

WE had requested the insured telephonically as well as through speed post reminders dated 10.06.2017, 04.07.2017 and 12.09.2017 for completion about claim formalities.

There is possibility of change of driver, place of accident, third party loss. Hence the insurers are requested to get the case investigate keeping in view above facts before finalizing the claim.

M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. vide their letter dated 10.06.2017 followed with reminders dated 04.07.2017 and 12.09.2017 has called upon the complainant to supply the documents detailed in the letter dated 10.06.2017 as below:-

• Claim form duly filled and signed
• Detailed estimate of loss
• Original RC book for verification and return
• Original driving licence for verification and return
• Spot photographs if arranged, if not give reason
• Copy of police report, if lodged, if not give reason
• Copy of route permit, fitness, load challan/GR
• Please also inform us under repair inspection of vehicle
• T.P. loss if any
• Any other information pertaining to the claim

M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. was also called upon to submit the verification report of the driving licence of Shri Sher Singh s/o. Shri Fakir Singh from the office of DTO, Ludhiana. The said surveyor had moved an application with DTO, Ludhiana on 21.06.2017.Licensing Authority, Ludhiana after due inspection of their records had submitted their report on the application dated 21.06.2017 so moved by the surveyor M/s. UPS Sachdeva & Co. The said surveyor thereafter prepared his report dated 14.09.2017 and submitted the same with National Insurance Co. Ltd.  M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. surveyor loss assessor and valuer, 28-A, Shastri Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana was appointed for reinspection of the vehicle. The said surveyor had reinsected the vehicle at Transport Nagar, Ludhiana on 16.11.2017 and thereafter prepared his report dated 30.12.2017 under his signatures and submitted the same along with photographs.

3.                After scrutinizing the reports and documents of Sh. Manish Kapila dated 14.06.2017 and motor final survey report dated 14.09.2017 of M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co., the opposite parties had called upon the complainant vide letter dated 04.10.2017 followed by reminder dated 17.10.2017 to submit the documents within 7 days enabling the complainant to proceed further. The queries raised are reproduced as under:-

• In this claim, DDR No.28 dated 30.05.2017 was written and spot survey dated 31.05.2017 was conducted. So there is a delay of 2 days in registering the DDR and 3 days in spot surveyor. Please let us know the reason for the same.
• It has been observed that the vehicle was not at the spot of accident at the time of spot survey. Please let us know the reason for the same.
• As per DDR the owner of the vehicle is Mr. Sher Singh. So you doesn’t have any insurable interest in this claim. Please clarify with documentary evidence.
• Final surveyor has issued various registered letter dated 10.06.2017, 04.07.2017 and 12.09.2017 seeking various documents but you have not supplied the following documents:-
• Fitness certificate
• Goods receipt/GR copy for the goods loaded at the time of accident.
• Final bill of receipts]
• Route permit not provided
• Spot photos, if arranged by you
• Original estimates of the damaged vehicle
• Original bills of repair and payment receipt.
• You have not produced the vehicle for re-inspection. Please produce the vehicle for reinspection along with salvage and inform the surveyor regarding the same.
• Please let us have an affidavit clarifying the loss/injury.
• Any injury to driver or cleaner.
• Name of drive r and cleaner
• Place of loss
• Date and time of loss

The complainant received the aforesaid letter and sought 15 days time to submit the documents vide his reply dated 16.11.2017. The complainant has failed to send the reply or submit the documents as sought for vide aforesaid letters.

                   M/s. Atulya Investigations, House No.2243, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh was appointed as investigator to investigate the genuineness of the road accident of truck No.Pb-10-ES-9621. The said investigator had made thorough investigation, took the documents and thereafter prepared his report dated 30.12.2017 under their signatures and submitted the same with Natinal Insurance Co. Ltd.

                   Sh. Japneet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, B-34-5795, Raghbir Park, Jassian Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana was appointed to verify the genuineness of the permit of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-ES-9621. The said surveyor had moved an application for verification of permit with Regional Transport Authority, Patiala on 13.10.2018. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala after due verification of their records has submitted their report on the application so moved by Sh. Japneet Singh. Thereafter, the said surveyor Sh. Japneet Singh prepared his report dated 18.10.2018 under his signatures and submitted the same with the opposite parties along with enclosures and annexures attached with the report. Sh. Japneet Singh was also appointed for verification of driving licence of Sh. Sher Singh son of Fakir Singh. The said surveyor moved an application with DTO Office, Ludhiana. Licensing Authority, Ludhiana after due verification of their record had submitted their report on the application so moved by Sh. Japneet Singh. The said surveyor Sh. Japneet Singh prepared his report dated 27.09.2018 under his signatures and submitted the same with the opposite parties along with enclosures attached with it. Sh. Japneet Singh was also appointed to verify the genuineness of the fitness certificate of vehicle No.PB-10-ES-9621  . The said surveyor moved an application with Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ludhiana on 20.09.2018. The office of Motor Vehicle Inspector after due verification of the record had submitted their report on the application so moved by Sh. Japneet Singh dated 20.09.2018 and thereafter, Sh. Japneet Singh submitted the said report with opposite parties.

                   Sh. Japneet Singh was also appointed to verify the authorization certificate of N.P. Goods in respect to vehicle No.PB-10-ES-9621. The said surveyor Japneet Singh moved an application with Regional Transport Authority, Patiala to that effect on 13.10.2018. The said authorities after due verification of the records had prepared their report on the application so moved by Sh. Japneet Singh and thereafter Sh. Japneet Singh had prepared his report dated 18.10.2018 and submitted the same with the opposite parties. Sh. Japneet Singh Malik, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed for verification of the bills. The said surveyor had verified the genuineness of the bills and thereafter prepared his report dated 10.01.2018 and submitted the same with opposite parties. The documents sought from the complainant were the material documents required for processing the claim after waiting for sufficient time for the complainant to submit the reply to letters dated 04.10.2017, 17.10.2017, 30.10.2017 and 28.12.2017 and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file and after due application of the mind of the officials of the opposite parties, the claim file of the complainant was closed as no claim in terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The opposite parties vide letter dated 07.09.2018 informed that due to non-submission of documents, the claim file of the complainant has been closed as no claim. According to the opposite parties, the claim file of the complainant was rightly closed as no claim as the ground of closing are legal, valid and enforceable and are in accordance with the procedure, practice and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, the opposite parties reiterated averments made in the preliminary objections and they have denied that there is deficiency of service and also submitted that there is a delay of 2 days in registering the DDR No.28 of 30.05.2017 and there is a delay of three days in spot survey. The complainant was called upon to give reasons but he had failed to send the reply. Even the vehicle in question was not at the spot of the accident at the time of spot survey.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is copy of his adhar card, Ex. C2 is the insurance policy No.404501/31/17/6300000099 valid from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018, Ex. C3 is the copy of DDR No.28 dated 30.05.2017, Ex. C4 is copy of Authorisation Certificate of N.P. (Goods), Ex. C5 to Ex. C12 are the copies of bills of repair of the vehicle, Ex. C13 is the copy of Goods Carriage permit for Hire or Reward, Ex. R14 is the copy of driving licence of the complainant, Ex. C15 is copy of Certificate of Fitness of the vehicle No.PB-10-ES-9621 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Gurbhajan Singh, Branch Manager of the opposite parties, affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Japneet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, affidavit Ex. RC of Sh. Sameer Gupta of M/s. Atulya Investigating, affidavit Ex. CD of S. Manish Kapila, Licensed IRDA approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor, affidavit Ex. RE of Sh. UPS Sachdeva of M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. an IRDA Licensed and Approved Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuers and affidavit Ex. RF of Sh. Jaspreet Singh Malik, Surveyor and Loss Assessor along with documents Ex. R1  copy of intimation letter, Ex. R2  to Ex. R7 are the copies of interse correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties, Ex. R8 is the Motor (Spot) Survey Report of Sh. Manish Kapila, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ex. R9 to Ex. R11, Ex. R37 to Ex. R43, Ex. R54 to Ex. R56 are the photographs of the damaged vehicle, Ex. R12, Ex. R81 are the copies of certificate of fitness of vehicle No.PB-10-ES-9621, Ex. R13, Ex. R72, Ex. R76are the copies  of Authorisation Certificate of N.P. (Goods), Ex. R14, Ex. R31, Ex. R70, Ex. R84 are the copies of Goods Carriage Permit for Hire or Reward, Ex. R15 and Ex. R16, Ex. R19 and Ex. R20, Ex. R44, Ex. R45, Ex. R79 is the copy of driving licence of Randeep Kaushal, Ex. R17 is the copy of Motor Final Survey Report  of M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva, Surveyor and Loss Assessors, Ex. R18, Ex. R23 to Ex. R30, Ex. R36, Ex. R60 to Ex. R67, Ex. R86 to Ex. R88  are the copies of repair bill, Ex. R21, Ex. R48 are the copies of DDR No.28 dated 30.05.2017, Ex. R22, Ex. R32, Ex. R49 to Ex. R51 are the copies of letter written by M/s. UPS Sachdeva to the complainant, Ex. R33,  Ex. R46, Ex. R47, Ex. R73 are the copies of fees paid to Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Ex. R34 is the copy of letter written to DTO, Ludhiana, Ex. R35 is the copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form, Ex. R52 is the interim report and Ex. R53 is the re-inspection report submitted by UPS Sachdeva & Co., Ex. R57 is the Claim Investigation Report of Atulya Investigations, Ex. R58 is the copy of letter written by Atulya Investigations to the complainant, Ex. R59 is copy of photograph, Ex. R68, Ex. R69, Ex. R71, Ex. R72, Ex. R74, Ex. R75, Ex. 77, Ex. R78, Ex. 80, Ex. 82, Ex. R83 are the copies of report submitted by Sh. Japneet Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ex. R85 is the bill verification report of vehicle in question, Ex. R89 is the insurance policy No.404501/31/17/6300000099 valid from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018, Ex. R9 is the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                The claim file was closed as no claim by the opposite parties vide letter dated 07.09.2018 (Ex. R7). In the present case, the accident took place on 28.05.2017 and on receipt of the intimation, Mr. Manish Kapila was immediately appointed as spot surveyor who gave his report on 14.06.2017 (Ex. R8) in which he clearly stated that the vehicle was not on the place of accident/spot. Finally the vehicle was inspected by M/s. U.P.S. Sachdeva & Co. who gave interim report on 03.06.2017 and final report on 14.09.2017 (Ex. R17). During this period, on 10.06.2017, 04.07.2017 and 12.09.2017, the complainant was asked to complete the claim formalities as in the opinion of said surveyor, there was a possibility of change of driver and place of accident and third party loss. Certain other important documents enlisted in the letter dated 10.06.2017 (Ex. R22) were also requisitioned. At one time, the complainant had also sought time of 15 days but again he failed to send the reply or submit the documents. The opposite parties have continued to demand the documents from the complainant from the date of accident i.e. 28.05.2017 till repudiation of the claim on 07.09.2018 i.e. more than period of 16 months. As such, it cannot be said that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in settling the insurance claim of the complainant. There is a delay about two days in registering the DDR and even the vehicle was not at the spot of accident at the time of spot survey. The complainant did not assign any reason for such delay and even did not provide details of the vehicle with which the accident took place. As such, the claim of the complainant was rightly and justifiably closed by the opposite parties due to non-cooperation of the complainant

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  However, this order will not bar the complainant for submitting fresh claim before the opposite parties. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Randeep Kaushal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.                               CC/19/210

Present:       Sh. Girish Anmol Sood, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  However, this order will not bar the complainant for submitting fresh claim before the opposite parties. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.