BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.339 of 2017

Date of Instt. 15.09.2017

Date of Decision: 25.03.2019

Paramjit Kaur Widow of Sh. Jinder Singh, R/o Patti Lakshian, VPO Malsian, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No.1, BMC Chowk, Near Radison Hotel, Jalandhar Through Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Shekhar Prabhakar, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Raman Kumar Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that deceased husband of the complainant Sh. Jinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh, R/o Patti Lakshian, VPO Malsian, Distt. Jalandhar had purchased a vehicle Mahindra B-Pick up in the year 2016, bearing Registration No.PB08DG-3648 having Engine No.G1D84484, Chasis No.D37035.

2. The OP had insured the above said vehicle under Insurance Cover Note No.GG31-401602038087, Book No.40160281024, Policy No.401100/31/16/630000719 by deducting the premium of Rs.26,261/-. The policy was issued on 30.04.2016 and its commencement date was from 30.04.2016 to 29.04.2017, but unfortunately, on 25.01.2017, the vehicle in question met with severe accident in the area of Police Station, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Patiala, in which the vehicle was totally damaged. Consequently, Sh. Jinder Singh, owner of the vehicle, husband of the complainant who was sitting on conductor seat was died in the accident. The said incident was reported to the police by the driver of the vehicle Sh. Harvinder Singh and police station Bahadur Garh, Distt. Patiala registered the said accident, vide Rapat No.5 dated 02.02.2017 in its Rozanmacha. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim before the OP as the vehicle was totally damaged. The complainant had also submitted all the required documents at the time of lodging the insurance claim before the OP.

3. That in response to the claim lodged by the complainant, the OP sent a letter dated 09.05.2017, whereby sought information and its reply was duly sent by the complainant, vide letter dated 17.05.2017 through registered letter. Thereafter, the OP again sent an other letter dated 23.05.2017 seeking medical certificate of Harvinder Singh, Driver, which was also sent by the complainant, vide letter dated 27.05.2017. That more than 8 months period have since been elapsed, but the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant, which ought to have been settled within a month after the claim was lodged. After being fed up with the attitude of the OP, the complainant served upon the OP a legal notice dated 03.07.2017 through her counsel by registered post, but the OP neither replied the said notice nor settled the claim till date. The act and conduct on the part of the OP clearly proves that they are not inclined to settle the claim of the complainant and moreover, the act and conduct of the OP tantamount to be an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service, which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OP be directed to pay Rs.6,04,320/- as total sum assured amount of the vehicle and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the material information from this Forum and also from the OP. On intimation of loss to the insured vehicle in an accident through Raga Motors, a surveyor and loss assessor namely M/s Kapoor & Co. was deputed by the OP to assess the loss. The said Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted his Interim Survey Report dated 23.02.2017, wherein he gave the observation that the steering of the damaged insured vehicle was pressed behind upto an extent that it was touching the Driver's Seat giving indication that the Chest up to front lower portion of abdomen of the driver might have been badly pressed, whereas co-driver seat was not effected much. The surveyor and loss assessor in his interim survey report dated 23.02.2017 has further given observation that there is sufficient reason to arrive at possibility that it was Jinder Singh, who was on the driving seat and recommended for thorough investigation. Registration Report No.5 dated 02.02.2017 of police PS Bahadur Garh, Distt. Patiala recorded on the statement of Harvinder Singh, which is a matter of record. Harvinder Singh has been implanted as driver of the insured vehicle, as Jinder Singh was not holding any driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. On recommendation of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, M/s S. A. Investigation and Consulting Agency was deputed to conduct the investigation and after thorough investigation, M/s S. A. Investigating & Consulting Agency submitted its Report dated 15.03.2017 with the OP. The investigator has reported that as per investigation and visit to the spot of occurrence, there was only one person in the ill-fated vehicle at the time of accident, who sustained severe injuries and the said person was sent to hospital. The investigator further observed that from the condition of the vehicle it is evident that it was insured who was driving the vehicle and received injuries in chest and abdomen, as the steering wheel of the vehicle is touching the driver's seat of the vehicle. The person driving the vehicle cannot escape the injury to chest and abdomen, but Harvinder Singh has not received any injury and Harvinder Singh has not provided any treatment record to show that he received any injury while driving the vehicle bearing No.PB-08-DG-3648. It is established from the Medical Record that Jinder Singh received chest and abdomen injuries and from the condition of the damaged vehicle that it was Jinder Singh who was driving the insured vehicle and not Harvinder Singh. As deceased insured Jinder Singh was not holding any driving licence, so Harvinder Singh has been shown as driver of the vehicle to get claim. It is further submitted that the complaint is pre-matured, as the complainant instead of giving her comments/reply qua the change of driver from Jinder Singh to Harvinder Singh despite repeated requests and reminders, the complainant has filed the present complaint, which is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was got insured with the OP and it is also admitted that after causing damages to the vehicle by accident, a Surveyor was appointed, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1- to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Gupta as Ex.O-A along with some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-13 and further tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. A. S. Kapur, Surveyor & Loss Assessor as Ex.OB and affidavit of Sh. Sarv Daman Bhalla, Investigator as Ex.OC and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The case set up by the complainant is that the husband of the complainant Jinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh purchased a vehicle bearing No.PB08-DG-3648 Mahindra B-Pick Up and the same was got insured from OP and copy of the Insurance is Ex.C-3 and Registration Certificate Ex.C-2 prove the ownership of deceased Jinder Singh, but all of sudden, the vehicle of the insured, met with an severe accident on 25.01.2017 in the area of Police Station Bahadur Garh, Distt. Patiala, regarding that a DDR was also recorded on 02.02.2017, copy of the same is Ex.C-4 and after few days, the husband of the complainant namely Jinder Singh succumbed to injuries and his death certificate is Ex.C-5, the husband of the complainant remained admitted lastly in Joshi Hospital, regarding that the bills of the Joshi Hospital placed on the file Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 and thereafter, the complainant submitted an insurance claim with the OP that the vehicle in question was being driven by driver Harvinder Singh and her husband was sitting on the conductor seat and the vehicle in question fully damaged and therefore, the insurance claim i.e. IDV be given to the complainant along with compensation, but the claim of the complainant has been lingering on by the OP on one pretext or the other and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint and further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted.

9. The case of the complainant has been refuted by the OP by taking only one plea that the interim report of Tejinder Singh Anand Ex.O-2 as well as interim report of Kapoor & Company Ex.O-3 and then detailed investigation report of S. A. Investigating & Consulting Agency Ex.O-4 itself established that the vehicle in question on the fate day, was being driven by deceased Jinder Singh, husband of the complainant, but the said Jinder Singh deceased was not having a driving licence and later on, the complainant by way of manipulating the claim, submitted that the vehicle was being driven by Harvinder Singh, but the reports of the Surveyor and Investigator itself established that the vehicle was virtually being driven by Jinder Singh and he got chest and abdomen injuries due to reason the steering of the vehicle in question was totally bend and touch to the driver seat and further submitted that if the Harvinder Singh was virtually driving the vehicle, then at least some injuries must be caused to him, but despite repeated request, the complainant miserably failed to produce any medical report or certificate of the Harvinder Singh alleged driver and accordingly, the OP has not cleared the insurance claim of the complainant.

10. Now, we have to analyze the facts as elaborated by both the parties with the help of the documents. First of all, the accident in question was occurred on 25.01.2017, but why the matter was reported to the concerned police station on 02.02.2017, means after 8 days and during that period of 8 days, it seems that the entire story has been manipulated by the complainant just to get un-warranted insurance claim from the OP by showing Harvinder Singh as a driver of the affected vehicle. These observations are further fortified from some other documents i.e. the OP has demanded some documents from the complainant, vide letter Ex.C-9 dated 09.05.2017, no doubt its reply has been given by the complainant, same is Ex.C-10 and further OP demanded some further documents as well as driving licence of the Harvinder Singh and medical treatment documents of said Harvinder Singh, vide letter dated 23.05.2017 Ex.C-12, no doubt its reply has been also given by the complainant and copy of the same is Ex.C-13, but the relevant portion is only that the document in regard to medical treatment if any taken by Harvinder Singh, but the said document has not been supplied by the complainant rather gave a reply that whatsoever documents were in her possession has been already submitted and further submitted that medical record of Harvinder Singh is not available because he was not admitted in hospital as no serious injuries were inflicted upon him. The above said reply is under scan to analyze the real facts of the case in hand. As per report of the S. A. Investigating & Consulting Agency Ex.O-4, the reply of the aforesaid query has been come in Para No.8 of the said report, wherein stated that the surveyor contacted the hospital authority at Amrit Hospital, Patiala, who have confirmed from their record that insured Mr. Jinder Singh had been brought to his hospital on 25.01.2017 with accidental injuries and it was diagnosed that the accidental injuries on chest, abdomen were confirmed. Here, one thing is important, which to be remember that after diagnose from injuries on chest and abdomen were confirmed of the deceased Jinder Singh. As per report of the S. A. Investigating & Consulting Agency, wherein observed that the steering of the damaged insured vehicle was pressed behind upto an extent that it was touching the driver seat giving indication that the chest upto front lower portion of abdomen of the driver might have been badly pressed. This observation of the investigator is virtually confirmed from all factors because the alleged driver Harvinder Singh stated that he did not get any injury except minor abrasion, this version is not admissible because if the condition of the steering is to that extent as explained by the investigator, then the injury in the chest and abdomen must be very serious, but no injury caused on the person of the Harvinder Singh in that accident, whereas the injury in the chest and abdomen was found on the person of deceased Jinder Singh, which itself show that on the fate day, Jinder Singh was only traveling in the vehicle and he was the driver, admittedly he was not having driving licence and later on after 7 or 8 days, the new story was propounded and submitted a claim by inserting Harvinder Singh as driver instead of Jinder Singh. Further, the OP has sent so many letters to the complainant to submit medical record of Harvinder Singh, the alleged driver, but the complainant miserably failed to produce any record and in alternative, we are of the opinion that the complainant can collect record from the Amrit Hospital, Patiala, where firstly deceased Jinder Singh was admitted and there-from, it could be confirmed whether the Jinder Singh was brought by Harvinder Singh alleged driver in that hospital or not, but for the best known reason, the complainant has not made efforts to collect such like evidence, which shows that virtually there is no evidence available with the complainant to prove that the vehicle was virtually being driven by Harvinder Singh Driver. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the investigation conducted by the S. A. Investigating & Consulting Agency is virtually true and by making a base of that report of the Investigating Agency, the insurance claim of the complainant has rightly not been cleared by the OP. So, with these observations, we reached to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

25.03.2019 Member President