Complainant Harninder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to give the insurance claim for the loss suffered by him due to accident of his vehicle i.e. new i-20 (IB) Sportzl.2 BSIV Car bearing registration No.PB06-AJ-1255 which is fully insured with opposite party no.1 and 2 vide policy of Insurance bearing No.401502311810000487 which is valid from 04.05.2018 to 03.05.2019 with IDV value of the vehicle in question as Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% after declaring the vehicle in question as total loss or  otherwise direction may kindly be issue to disclose him about the name of authorized service centre from where he may get repair his vehicle and also direction may kindly be issued to pay the complete services charges alongiwth compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, agony, inconvenience and also to pay  Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a new i-20 (IB) Sportzl.2 BSIV car bearing registration No.PB06-AJ-1255 in the year 2016 in the name of his father namely Sh.Karnail Singh son of Bawa Singh through CSD facility. It was financed with ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Gurdaspur and regular installments have been paid through auto debt.  He has further  pleaded that said car was fully insured with opposite parties no.1 and 2 through  opposite party no.3 vide insurance policy  No.401502311810000487 valid from 04.05.2018 to 03.05.2019 and declared IDV value was Rs.4,50,000/-. Complainant further  pleaded that said car met with an accident on 6.11.2018 at about 11.00 AM while Harninder Singh was driving the vehicle, when suddenly a calf came in front of the vehicle as a result said vehicle fallen in the water channel and turned turtle  and damaged extensively. He further mentioned that son of complainant i.e. driver of the vehicle made written complaint before the police station Purana Shalla and same day intimated opposite party no.3 through telephonically. After that written request through registered cover letter dated 08.11.2018 was sent to opposite party no.2. It is further pleaded that opposite party no.2 deputed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and orally told that the vehicle has become total loss. The said vehicle thereafter has been sent to M/s.Narinder Auto Mobile, G.T.Road, Gurdaspur for estimation charges of repair on the advise of the surveyor. Complainant further added that complete file with estimate of amounting to Rs.5,55,550/- has been handed over to opposite party no.2 with relevant claim documents alongwith death certificate of his father namely Sh.Karnail Singh who expired in the year 2016. Complainant further pleaded that he has approached so many times to opposite party no.2 to release of insurance claim but they flatly refused on the pretext that father of the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle and policy was also in his name, so insurance claim cannot be sanctioned. It is also mentioned by complainant that being co-applicant in the loan financed by ICICI Bank, said vehicle is not transferred in his name. As the vehicle is fully insured with opposite parties no.1 and 2 and premium also stand paid, therefore complainant is entitled to receive the insurance claim and denial of the claim is illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.  

 3.         Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is premature as no claim has ever been filed by the complainant and no intimation has been given regarding the loss. The appointment of surveyor as alleged by complainant is also denied by the opposite parties. As such no question of deficiency in service on the part of insurance company arises and it is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligations; complainant Harinder Singh does not fall within the definition of consumer and the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle. On merits, it was wrong and incorrect that the complainant has purchased a four wheeler vehicle i.e. new i20 (IB) Sportzl, 2 BSIV Car bearing registration No.PB06-AJ-1255 in the year 2016 in the name of his father namely Sh.Karnail Singh son of Sh.Bawa Singh by availing the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) facility as his father was ex-serviceman. It was also wrong and incorrect that the complainant had got his vehicle insured with opposite party vide a Insurance Policy bearing No.401502311810000487 valid from dated 04.05.2018 to 03.05.2019. Actually the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle and there is no contract between the opposite parties and complainant. As such the complainant Harinder Singh does not fall within the definition of consumer. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Opposite party no.3 had been served through dasti summon but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3. Hence, opposite party no.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.4.2019.

5.      Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit  and Sh.Harsimran Singh alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18.

6.      Alongwith the written statement opposite partiesno.1 and 2 filed affidavit of Sh.Kulbhushan Kumar Ex.OP-1,2/1.

7.      Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

8.      Written arguments have not been filed by both parties.

9.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

10.     As detailed above, complainant alleged in the present complaint that his insurance claim of accident of his car is refused by opposite parties. As per complainant, a car bearing registration No.PB06-AJ-1255 in the name of the father of complainant was purchased in 2016 (Ex.C-2) As per Ex.C-4 this vehicle is insured with opposite party no.1 and 2 and valid upto  3.5.2019. FIR of 6.11.2018 which is placed at Ex.C-5 show that this vehicle met with an accident on 6.11.2018 when a stray animal came in front of car. Total loss is alleged by complainant.

       Complainant also placed on record at Ex.C6 the intimation letter dated 8.11.2018 to Branch Manager NIC Gurdaspur. As per Ex.C-3 the said vehicle is financed by ICICI Bank. As per documents submitted by complainant Registration, Insurance, Loan of Bank, these are in the name of Sh. Karnail Singh (father of complainant). It is also mentioned by complainant that his father died in the year 2016 and his death certificate is placed Ex.C-16. Copy of the repair estimate of Rs.5,55,550/- framed by Narinder Automobiles, Gurdaspur is also placed at Ex.C-18 by complainant.

11.    Opposite party no.1 and 2 in their written reply stated that the complaint is premature as no claim has ever been filed by the complainant and no intimation has been given regarding loss. Further it is added by opposite party that policy is in name of Karnail Singh and no application is submitted for transfer of policy, as such complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.

12.    From the above facts and figures it is brought out that all the relevant documents of the vehicle in question are in the name of deceased father of complainant, who has expired in year 2016. Accident has happened within the validity period of insurance. Complainant failed to put on record any evidence showing that he has lodged the insurance claim with opposite party even the refusal letter of opposite party has also not been produced.

13.     The view point of opposite party seems to be correct regarding complaint being premature as complainant has not submitted any insurance claim to the opposite parties.

14.     In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed by giving the directions to both the parties. Complainant is directed to file a fresh insurance claim alongwith all relevant documents to opposite parties within 15 days from the issue of order and further opposite parties are directed to settle and pay the admissible claim to the complainant within 30 days from the submission of the claim by the complainant.

             Accordingly the present complaint is disposed off with no order as to costs.

15.        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.

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

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

July 8, 2022                                                                    Member

*MK*