Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/95

Maninderjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.S. Sekhon

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      95

Date of Institution:  29.04.2016

Date of Decision :   26.09.2016

 

Maninderjeet Singh Khera s/o Sh Jagmohan Singh Khera, r/o  Street No. 1 R, New Cantt Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                 

...Complainant

Versus

1. New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd. New India Assurance Building 87 Mahatma Gandhi road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 through its Managing Director.

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. G T Road, Moga Opposite PSPCL Office through its District Manager.

  ....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh A K Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                   Present complaint is received from Hon’ble State Commission and it has been remanded back for fresh decision. Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs 18,25,000/- with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 1,00,000/- as damages for deficiency in service and harassment and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of vehicle Chevrolet/Optra having registration no. PB 11-AH-0040. Earlier said vehicle was registered in the name of Mrs Lata Verma and after purchasing the same from her, complainant got transferred the registration of said vehicle in his own name. Complainant got insured the vehicle in question from OPs vide policy for the period from 16.09.2014 to 15.09.2015 and has paid all the instalments upto date and nothing is due on account of instalments of insurance policy. Vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on Chehal Road, near Royal City, Faridkot on 8.11.2014, in which the said vehicle got totally damaged. Regarding accident, complainant got recorded the report no.27 dated 8.11.2014 under Section 427 of IPC with Police Station PS City, Faridkot. Thereafter, complainant got prepared the estimate for repair of vehicle from Padam Body Shop to the tune of Rs.17,19,000/-and also incurred Rs.6000/-for shifting the said vehicle form the place of accident to the workshop. Complainant also spent Rs. One lac for obtaining fancy number for vehicle in question. OPs also admitted the estimated cost of Rs.14,48,049/-as per their claim intimation letter dated 18.11.2014. Padam Cars Pvt Ltd, Bathinda further gave estimate for repair of engine of vehicle at a cost of Rs.2,71,435/- vide their estimate dated 8.12.2014. Thus, Ops are liable to pay Rs.18,25,000/-alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OPs, but despite repeated requests, OPs have not made payment of insurance claim to complainant. Due to this act of OPs, complainant has suffered great loss in his business and has also suffered harassment and mental agony. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs 17,19,000/-on account of cost of repair of vehicle as per estimate, Rs 6,000/- as carriage charges and Rs 1,00,000/- for fancy number alongwith Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs 20,000/- as litigation expenses incurred by him besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.02.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                 As this complaint is received from Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh as complainant went in appeal against the order dated 27.08.2015 of this Forum and as per directions of Hon’ble State Commission, OPs were directed to file fresh reply. In earlier reply, OPs took preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in the present form. It is asserted that lengthy evidence is required in this case and it should be referred to Civil Court for proper adjudication. Moreover, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further averred that claim of complainant was approved for Rs.3,23,000/- subject to furnishing the documents mentioned in letter dated 26.02.2015, which complainant did not supply to answering OPs and therefore, complainant himself is guilty of non-cooperation. Complainant can not claim Rs.5,15,000/- as liability of OPs is limited only to the extent of 3,25,000/- as complainant agreed to accept the amount of Rs.3,25,000/-vide consent letter dated 9.12.2014 in full and final settlement of his claim.

   5                               Now, in amended reply, Ops asserted that complainant got insured his Chevrolet Optra Car bearing Registration No. PB-11-AH-0040 with OPs at Moga vide Policy No. 36110031140100003416 valid for period from 16.09.2014 to 15.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- and complainant lodged claim regarding accident of said vehicle on 8.11.2014 at Chahal Road, Near Royal City, Faridkot and after receiving intimation dt 18.11.2014 from complainant, OPs appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Surveyor M/s M. L. Mehta and Company had assessed the vehicle as total loss and complainant agreed for settlement of claim for net of salvage basis for Rs.3,25,000/- less excess clause as per policy condition, without R.C. The claim was processed and approved for Rs.3,23,000/- and after the approval of claim, the Divisional Office sent a registered letter to the complainant on 26.02.2015 informing him that the competent authority has approved the claim for Rs.3,23,000/-on salvage basis and he was asked to submit the documents to enable the payment of the claim to him. But instead of submitting the papers, the complainant filed the present complaint, which was dismissed by ld Forum. But Ld Forum directed complainant to submit the documents which are required by OPs for the payment of claim of complainant and OPs were also directed to make payment of insurance claim of complainant to him within one month after submission of requisite documents by complainant with OPs. It is submitted that on 15.09.2015, when OPs were examining the order of this Forum, Sh Varjinder Gupta, Assistant Manager of OPs received a call from some unknown person, who informed him that car of complainant met with an accident on 11.09.2014 at Chahal Road, Faridkot near a cloth shop, where there was some heap of soil and after hitting the soil, vehicle became out of control and hit the electric pole. Said Varjinder Gupta further informed Sh Ashok Goyal, Sr Div. Manager of Ops regarding this call vide letter dated 16.09.2015. Thereafter, OPs appointed M/s Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency to investigate the claim of car of complainant, who during investigation, recorded the statements of Ajaib Singh Sehmbi, A.O. (D), the NIA Co. Ltd, Moga, Abhishek Goyal, representative of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, Maninder Singh, Vijay Chopa and Mahinder Singh and reported that there was breaking in insurance of car no. PB-11-AH-0040 and therefore, pre-inspection was required and same was carried out by Mr. Gagan of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd. The photographs of pre-inspection report no.29390 dated 15.09.2014 of Chevrolet  car no. PB-11-AH-0040 and the photographs taken by Investigator of car no. DL-4C-AD-2722 are identical, which proves that photographs of car are forged by replacing the registration number plates, by the representative of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd. Statement of Vijay Chopra proves that car no. PB-11-AH-0040 met with accident about two months back prior to occurrence of insurance on 16.09.2014. This person also confirmed that after the accident, the said car remained parked at his house for about two months, when two persons came to take the chassis print of damaged car. It is further averred that Mahinder Singh whose statement was recorded by Investigator, confirmed through affidavit that Chevrolet Optra Car no. DL-4C-AD-2722 is owned by him and it was being used on hire. His driver Bittu also confirmed that complainant hired the car in  September, 2014 and after taking the car to Grain Market, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot, he got the car photographed after changing the number plates of Punjab Registration. From the investigation, it is established that complainant in connivance with Gagan of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt ltd fabricated a false and pre-concocted Inspection Report of car no. PB-11-AH-0040, which met with an accident, when it was un-insured. Complainant has played fraud with OPs and claimed that car met with an accident on 8.11.2014. Moreover, complainant deliberately delayed the intimation to OPs. After receiving Investigation Report from M/s Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency, Sr Div. Manager of Moga lodged complaint to SSP, Moga against complainant and Abhishek Goyal for playing fraud with OPs by forging the pre-risk Inspection Report of Car NO. PB-11-AH-0040 and in this case, fraud was detected after passing the award. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complainant is not entitled for relief sought by him. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                            Complainant has filed replication to the reply filed by OPs, wherein it is contended that all the documentary evidence has been produced on file and  case of complainant is fully proved as complainant took policy of his car from OPs, which is already on file and complainant has never played any fraud with Ops, rather OPs want to usurp the lawful claim of complainant in connivance with Dalip Chopra and Vijay Chopra. It is asserted that OPs were willing to make payment of Rs.3,23,000/-to OPs on account of loss assessed by them, but complainant was never ready to receive this amount as his claim was for Rs.19,45,000/-,  but Ops forced him to receive the amount of Rs.3,23,00/-after hatching a false story in connivance with Vijay Chopra and Dalip Chopra, which was pre-planned by OPs to usurp the lawful claim of complainant. Complainant has enmity with these two persons and they made false pre-planned story and rejected the claim of complainant. Complainant has no concern with photographs of car no. DL-4C-AD-2722 and owner of this car is a hired person of OPs only to repudiate the claim of complainant. Complainant has denied all the allegations levelled by Ops and prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

7                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Earlier complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-13 and then, closed his evidence. After orders by Hon’ble State Commission, ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex C-1 to 23 and closed the same on behalf of complainant.

8                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, earlier ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, affidavit of Din Dayal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP- 5 and after order of Hon’ble Commission, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence documents Ex Op-1 to 13  and Ex RA to RD and closed the same.

9                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the record on file.

10                            The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a car, which was insured with OPs for the period from 16.09.2014 to 15.09.2015. During the period of insurance, on 8.11.2014, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an  accident and was totally damaged. He duly lodged report with the police and gave information regarding accident to OPs, who appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor of OPs assessed the loss to the vehicle and gave his report to OPs, but OPs did not make the payment of claim amount. On it, he filed a complaint before this Forum and this Forum decided the complaint filed by complainant vide its order dated 27.08.2015 with direction to complainant to submit the documents which are required to OPs for payment of his claim and the OPs are further directed to make payment of insurance claim of complainant after submitting the required documents by complainant.  As per directions of this Forum, the complainant submitted all the required documents for payment of his claim to OPs, but even after it, they did not make payment of insurance claim to complainant and denied the payment on false allegations. On the other hand, OPs admitted that vehicle in question of complainant was insured with Ops for the period from 16.09.2014 to 15.09.2015 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 8.11.2014 as reported by the complainant. On information by complainant, OPs appointed Surveyor to assess and verify the loss to the said vehicle. The said Surveyor assessed the loss on net salvage basis for Rs.3,25,000/-. The claim of complainant was assessed and approved and complainant was directed to submit the documents which were required for payment of claim with Ops. Instead of submitting those documents, complainant filed the complaint before this Forum, which was  decided by this Forum and complainant was directed to submit requisite documents with Ops for payment of his claim and Ops were directed to make payment of claim amount on receipt of documents submitted by complainant. They argued that on 15.09.2015, when the OPs were processing the claim of complainant as per direction of this Forum, they received a telephonic call in their office from some unknown caller, who informed that car of complainant met with an accident on 11.09.2014 i.e before the purchase of Insurance Policy. After receiving this call, the matter was taken up with Higher Authorities and Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency was appointed to investigate the claim of complainant. During investigation, Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency recorded the statements of officials of OP Insurance Company Abhishek Goyal representative of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, Mahinder Singh, Vijay Chopra and Maninder Singh, he also took photographs of Optra car bearing no. DL-4C-AD-2722 and submitted Investigation Report that there is breaking in insurance policy of car in question and Pre-Inspection was carried out by Mr Gagan of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, who submitted his report alongwith photographs and on their report, the insurance was issued. The photographs of car in question PB-11-AH-0040 and photographs of car bearing no. DL 4C AD 2722 are identical which proves that photographs are forged by replacing the RC numbers of the car. As per statement of Vijay Chopra car in question met with accident prior to the Insurance and said  car remained  parked in his house for about 2 months. Mohinder Singh made statement that car DL 4C AD 2722 is owned by him and same has been plied on hire. His driver Bittu informed him that complainant hired the car in the month of September 2014 and took his car to grain market, Faridkot where he got photographs of car after changing number plates. From the investigation, it is established that complainant in connivance with Gagan of  M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, fabricated the false and concocted Pre Inspection Report of the car which had already met with an accident, got the insurance of the car and tried to get the claim of this car by playing fraud by stating that it met with an accident on 8.11.2014. After receiving the Investigation Report, the Insurance Company lodged a complaint with SSP, Moga which was received by the office of SSP on 7.10.2015 against complaint. As complainant played fraud by getting insurance of his already accidental car by forging the pre risk inspection report of car in connivance with representative of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, So, this claim is not admissible and complainant is not entitled for any claim for damages to his car.  His complaint may be dismissed with costs. Copy of the Investigation Report is Ex Op-6. Affidavit of Kashmir Singh is Ex R-B.

11                               On this, ld counsel for complainant argued that there is no fraud or forgery played by complainant with Ops. It is wrong that car of complainant met with an accident prior to purchase of insurance policy and complainant lodged false claim with OPs. The OPs just want to escape the liability of genuine claim of complainant in one way or the other. The entire story is set up by Ops in connivance with one Vijay Chopra and Dalip Chopra s/o Madan Chopra, who had enmity with complainant. There are so many Civil as well as Criminal cases pending between complainant and Vijay Chopra and Dalip Chopra. Copies of case status of cases between complainant and Vijay Chopra and Dalip Chopra are Ex C-15 to 20. The OPs never raised any objection regarding getting the false pre Inspection Report by him before this Forum in the earlier complaint filed by complainant before this Forum. It is a false story made only after the decision of this Forum vide which, OPs were directed to pay the insurance claim of his damaged car, in connivance with Vijay Chopra and Dalip Chopra on whose telephonic call they initiated investigation of the claim and alleged that car of the complainant met with an accident prior to inception of policy. The OPs have failed to prove that car was damaged prior to inception of Policy. There is report of Insurance Company conducting Pre-Inspection Report of the vehicle on 15.09.2014. copy of which is produced by Ops themselves as Ex OP-10. In this report, no pre inspection damages are reported to the vehicle of complainant. Moreover, from the alleged investigation, conducted by OPs, they examined Mr Abhishek Goyal of M/s Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt Ltd, who conducted the pre inspection of car in question who confirmed the Pre Inspection Report and stated that said report is correct and there were no damages to the car. The OPs alleged that Vijay Chopra stated that car of complainant met with an accident about 2 months prior to inception of insurance policy and the said car was got parked in his house whereas there are a number of cases are pending between complainant on one side and Vijay Chopra  and his brother Dalip Chopra on other side. Copies of status report of these cases are Ex C-15 to 20.

12                             In these circumstances, how the complainant can park his car in the house of said Vijay Chopra or Dalip Chopra.  Only due to enmity with complainant, they in connivance with OPs and other persons made this story to usurp the payment of genuine insurance claim and to cause monitory loss to complainant. The alleged person Mahinder Singh who is alleged to be stating that he is the owner of car no. DL 4C AD-2722 alleging that the photographs of this vehicle was got by changing the number plates at the time of pre inspection is also a party man of Dalip Chopra and Vijay Chopra. It is alleged that the driver of said Mahinder Singh informed him that complainant hired the car, got the photographs of the car after changing the number plates but they did not get statement of said driver namely Bittu to prove the allegations. This person was the best evidence to prove that whether any forgery regarding photographs was held or not and only this person was eye witness but he was not examined. Admittedly, on intimation by complainant regarding accident, the OPs appointed Surveyor to assess and inspect the loss to the vehicle of complainant who submitted his report with OPs. Copy of Survey Report is Ex OP-4. Vide this report, he inspected the vehicle on 23.11.2014, as per statement of Vijay Chopra, the car in question met with an accident 2 months prior to issuance of Insurance Policy i.e in the month of July, 2014 and Survey was conducted in the end of November, 2014 i.e about a gap of 4 months. Even as per allegations of OPs, the accident took place about 4 months prior to survey then, fact of passage of time should be seen on damaged parts, but the Surveyor did not comment on this point as per his report the damages were fresh ones. OPs never challenged the Survey Report. Moreover, the alleged witness of OPs Dalip Chopra, Mahinder Singh, Kashmir Singh never dared to appear before this Forum to give their statements and for cross examination to prove their allegations. The OPs only produced the certified copy of their affidavits which are allegedly submitted by them before Hon’ble State Commission as Ex R-B to D. Another allegations made by Ops in their Investigation Report is that the photographs of the car in question and car allegedly owned by Mahinder Singh bearing no. DL-4C AD-2722 are identical. No doubt the photographs of two vehicles of same make, model and colour should identical with each other then what difference is made out. The Ops alleged that on the basis of Investigation Report conducted by their investigator, they filed a complaint before SSP, Moga to take action against complainant. The copy of that complaint is Ex C-22 and OP-9 as filed by OPs. On this complaint, the office of SSP Moga conducted investigation and disposed of that complaint without taking any action vide their report dated 7.12.2015, copy of which is Ex C-23 and this report of the Police  is final and OPs have not taken any objection on this report and not filed any other complaint or case before any court or Higher Police Official. Now, no proceedings is pending against any  authority regarding the alleged forgery. The Ops are bound to make payment of insurance claim of complainant and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not making payment of genuine insurance claim of complainant on false grounds.

 13                           From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that Ops have failed to prove that the car of complainant was damaged in accident prior to issuance of Insurance Policy and he got Insurance Policy by suppressing this fact and lodged false claim with them. The Ops have failed to prove their allegations hence, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to make payment of Rs.3,25,000/- the claim for damages to vehicle of complainant as assessed by their Surveyor vide report Ex OP-4 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 27.08.2015 i.e from the date of earlier decision of this Forum till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 26.09.2015

                               Member                            President

 (P Singla)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)