Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/234

Mandip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh Adv.

13 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 234 dated 17.05.2019            

                                            Date of decision: 13.05.2023  

 

Mandip Singh aged 48 years son of Sh.Darshan Singh, resident of 4041, New Mohalla Prem Nagar, Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana, through his authorized person Sh.Charajit Singh Bains. Mobile No.98787-21188.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Head.

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Head Office: New India Assurance Company Building, 87, Mahatama Gandhi Road, fort, Mumbai-400001, through its Director/Manager/Head.

3.India Motors, G.T.Road, Opposite Military Camp, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Owner/Director/Partner.                                                                                                                        …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under section Consumer Protection Act, as amended upto date

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh.R.K.Chand, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Complaint not admitted vide order dated

30.05.2019.

 

AWARD

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by raising a consumer dispute against the OPs with regard to non-settlement of the insurance claim qua his car make Chevrolet Cruze having registration No.PB-11-AV-2600 which was insured with the OP1 and OP2 vide policy bearing No.18064 with validity period w.e.f.26.10.2018 to 25.10.2019. So, by filing the present complaint, complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to release the insurance claim along with interest as well as compensation amount of Rs.3 lacs and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Upon presentation of the complaint, same was admitted against OP1 and OP2 only and the same was not admitted against OP3 vide order dated 30.05.2019.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP1 and OP3 were duly appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement, whereby they took the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is false and frivolous one. The complaint has been filed by Charanjit Singh Bains who is not the insured and owner of the car in question. The answering OPs could not release the claim because the complainant did not get repair the alleged parts of the car in question. The OPs did not assess the loss to the tune of Rs.3,64,000/-. The amount of loss estimated by the surveyor could not be finalized due to the non-supply of actual repair bills. The surveyor deputed by the answering OPs assessed the estimated loss to the tune of Rs.1,73,577.23P and he prepared report dated 22.10.2019. The complainant is not entitled to any claim because the insured left the car in question unattended on the road of Chuni Sirhind and the car got damaged due to the negligence of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. On merits, all the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied being wrong and in the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A of Ms.Punam Sharma, Manager and Ex.RW1/B of Sh.R.P.Bhasin, Proprietor of M/s R.P.Bhasin and & Company along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R25 and closed the evidence.

6.                During the course of proceedings of the present complaint on 12.05.2023, Sh.Hardeep Singh, Assistant Manager of The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Mall Road, Ludhiana had given offer by suffering statement that the company is ready to pay Rs.1,34,750/- out of the assessed loss of Rs.1,73,577.37P but after deducting of GST as GST is not payable because the insured has not got repaired his vehicle. Further, he got recorded his statement that if the complainant is ready to receive the said amount, then one month time may kindly be granted to the insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant had also suffered statement on 12.05.2023 to the effect that the loss of the vehicle is more than the estimated loss assessed by the surveyor and if the OPs shall pay Rs.1,73,577/-, then they are ready to accept the said amount. Further, he had shown his willingness to accept the order, if any passed by this Commission with regard to the quantum of compensation.

7.                We have heard the counsel for the appearing parties and have also perused the statements suffered by the parties.

8.                           It is evident that the parties are inclined to effect compromised the matter in dispute but there is a conditional offer on their part. Perusal of record shows that the parties are litigating for the last about 4 years and the difference of amount of proposed settlement between the parties is small one. It is a fit case where this Commission is intervening, so that litigation must be put to its logical end for all intents and purposes. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate, if an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- is awarded in favour of the complainant towards the insurance claim of his car in question, which shall be liable to pay by the OP1 and OP2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint stands disposed of with the direction to the OP1 and OP2 to pay Rs.1,55,000/- to the complainant towards the insurance claim of his car, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Considering the conduct of the parties, there shall be no order as to compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of order/award be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

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

National Lok Adalat    National Lok Adalat                  Consumer Commission                   cum Chairman,                              National Lok   Adalat.                 13.05.2023                              GR