Punjab

Gurdaspur

CC/343/2019

Gurmit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Sameer Sharma & Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advs.

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GURDASPUR
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX , B BLOCK ,2nd Floor Room No. 328
 
Complaint Case No. CC/343/2019
( Date of Filing : 25 Nov 2019 )
 
1. Gurmit Singh
S/o Chanan Singh R/o vill Janday Tehsil and Distt Gurdaspur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Ltd.
G.T.Road Mandi Gurdaspur through its Manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Naveen Puri PRESIDENT
  Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sh.Sameer Sharma & Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advs., Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sh.Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 06 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

The titled complainant, aggrieved at partial-payment cum non-consideration of his car-accident insurance-claim, in full, pertaining to repairs to the accident-ed (insured) Car owned by him has filed the present complaint against the OP insurers; who had insured the Car comprehensively vide Policy # 401706209384 (Ex.C1) @ premium of Rs.11,775/- with effect from 12.02.2019 to 11.02.2020. Somehow, the Car got damaged in a road-side accident on 05.10.2019; and was repaired at the Workshop Alliance Auto Services, Gurdaspur @ Repairs Bill Rs.82,824/-(Ex.C4). However, the OP insurers had sanctioned/paid him Rs.53,000/- only and he had to pay the balance Rs.30,024/-, by himself. The complainant pleads having requested the OP insurers to pay the repairs bill, in full, but upon their refusal has filed the present complaint seeking issuance of directives to the OP insurers to pay him the outstanding balance of Rs.30,024/- with interest besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.       The titled opposite party insurers (the OP insurers) appeared in compliance to the commission’s summons/notice through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as:

3.       The complainant has no cause of action/ locus-standee to file the present complaint which is totally false and frivolous and he has not come to the honorable court with clean hands so all its allegations are denied. Further, the insurance is a contract between the two parties and both are bound by its terms & conditions and these cannot be increased or decreased. Further, there has been no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, the OP Insurers have admitted having insured the car RC # PB-06-AB-8218 that met with an accident on 05.10.2019 & upon getting intimation (Ex.OP1) they had deputed the surveyor cum loss assessors and also got the quantum of loss confirmed from another surveyor who had both assessed and affirmed/confirmed the loss @ Rs.52,517/- (Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3) and they have already paid the claim at Rs.52,500/- and there's no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has been senselessly demanding repairs that were not part of the damage caused by the road-side accident as on 05.10.2019. Lastly the OP insurers have prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs U/35-A of the CPC.

4.       We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘non-consideration/non-payment’ of the car-accident insurance-claim, in full, pertaining to the Policy in question, by the OP insurers, as filed by the present complainant. We find that the complainant has failed to produce some cogent evidence in order to prove/support the authenticity/genuineness of the repair bills by way of one pre-repairs assessment of accident-loss to the car preferably through an expert evidence of an independent surveyor/automobile engineer but that was not even attempted.

5.       Somehow, we neither approve nor accept the complainant's claim in the absence of an evidence on records of the present proceedings. On the other hand, the OP insurers have placed forth sufficient evidence by way of repetitive loss-assessment reports by the two IRDA approved Surveyors & Loss Assessors, to prove their rebuttal in response to the allegations as put forth by the complainant. 

6.       In the light of the all above, we ORDER dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its cost.

7.         The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

8.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

 

 

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.                                     

ANNOUNCED:                                  (B.S.Matharu)

JULY 06, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.

 
 
[ Sh. Naveen Puri]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.