Punjab

Sangrur

CC/956/2015

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Chatta

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                         

                                                Complaint No.  956

                                                Instituted on:    01.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2016

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Mal Chand, House No.321, Ward No.2, VPO Mohna, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal (Haryana).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Malerkotla through its Branch Manager, District Sangrur.

2.     National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office: SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.     Jagsir Khan son of Shri Chanan Khan, resident of Village Togawal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri GS Chatha, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2.      :       Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.3.            :       Shri Sukhdeep Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ramesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his truck Ashoka Leyland bearing registration number HR-64/5304 from the OPs vide policy/cover note number 401201404334, which was valid for the period from 26.10.2013 to 25.10.2014. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question damaged in an accident on 28.5.2014 in the area of PS Sunam, of which DDR number 14 dated 29.5.2014 was registered and the driver of the vehicle also received injuries in the accident. It is further averred that the information of the accident was given to the OPs, who appointed surveyor and the surveyor inspected the accidental vehicle in question. It is further averred that the complainant through his power of attorney got repaired the said vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on its repairs and thereafter submitted all the original bills to the OPs, but the OPs did not settle the claim, despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs on 15.12.2014. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident of the truck in question, till realization and further to pay compensation for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that  the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is premature.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is stated that the complainant is no more consumer of the OPs as he has already sold the vehicle to Jagsir Khan and he did not get transferred the vehicle in his name. It is stated that the complainant has cooked a wrong story to get the claim from the OPs. It is further denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the repair of the truck and it is stated that the complaint is premature.  It is further stated that the complainant did not submit the relevant documents to the Ops for settlement of the claim. However, any deficiency in service at all on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, it is admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is stated further that the vehicle of the complainant damaged in an accident  on 28.5.2014, of which DDR number 14 dated 19.5.2014 recorded at PS Sunam. It is admitted that the information was given to the Ops about the accident and the OPs deputed surveyor to assess the loss. It is stated that the complainant has already submitted the documents to the OPs number 1 and 2. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter dated 27.11.2014, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-13 copies of bills, Ex.C-14 copy of RC, Ex.C-15 affidavit, Ex.C-16 copy of national permit, Ex.C-17 copy of fitness certificate, Ex.C-18 copy of DDR and closed evidence,

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             A bare perusal of the file reveals that the Ops have not decided the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not submit the required documents.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has produced on record the copy of insurance policy, copies of the bills, copy of RC and route permit etc. on the record, but the OPs have not mentioned anything in the written reply that what documents they are still in need from the complainant for settlement of the claim in question and why they did not settle the claim of the complainant for such a long period.   Even the copy of DDR is also on record as Ex.C-18.  The complainant has also produced on record the copy of driving license of Jagsir Khan as Ex.OP3/2.  Further the stand of the OPs in the reply is that the complaint of the complainant is pre mature as the Ops have till date not settled the claim nor repudiated the same. We feel that non settlement of the claim for such a long period is itself a deficiency in service, more so when the OPs did not take any action to settle the claim even after filing of the present complaint on 1.9.2015 by the complainant before this Forum.  Under these circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case, where a direction is required to be given to the Ops number 1 and 2 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the documents submitted by him.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the documents already submitted with the OPs/submitted in the present complaint case by the complainant, within a period of 30 days from today and intimate their decision to the complainant by registered post. It is made clear that if the complainant feels unsatisfied from the decision of the Ops, then it will be open for the complainant to approach this Forum again to get his grievance redressed, if he so desired.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 4, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member