BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.113 of 2017

Date of Instt. 20.04.2017

Date of Decision: 26.06.2018

Gurteshwar Singh Age 31 years S/o Satinder Singh, R/o V&PO Nangal Shama, Jalandhar. Mobile No.9914605599.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., BO-3, Opp. Circuit House, Jalandhar Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 Through its M.D./General Manager/Authorized Representative.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh. AK Arora, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is owner of the vehicle, bearing No.PB-08-CB-9485, make Tata-2518. That the above said vehicle was insured with OPs vide Policy No.CHD-D/716258 for the period from 10.06.2015 to 11.06.2016. The OPs received from complainant a sum of Rs.45,289/- as premium for making the full insurance of above said vehicle. Within the validity of insurance, unfortunately the above said vehicle met with an accident on 16.05.2016 near Sofipind small bridge while saving a stray animal and accordingly, an FIR was lodged in Policy Post Pragpur, Jalandhar.

2. In the above said accident, the truck turned over and its Chassis, Cabin, Jack, Tipper Box and Engine etc. totally damaged, which caused loss to the tune of Rs.4,69,035/-. An information was given to the OPs in time. The OPs sent their surveyor, who surveyed the vehicle. The complainant got repaired the said vehicle from certain workshops namely Ninder Auto Electrician, Avtar Automobiles, Dara Singh Auto Workshop, Delta International, Surinder Kumar & Bros., Khalsa Denting Welding Works, New Jagat Body Builders and Reja Recovery Van. The complainant paid the amount to above said workshops as per their bills. The Surveyor made the report. All the documents alongwith claim form and repair bills were submitted to OPs in time and complainant requested the OPs many times to give the claim of above said accidental vehicle, but the OPs ignored and refused to give the claim and then legal notice was sent to the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,69,035/-, to the complainant and be also paid litigation expenses of Rs.3300/- and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP and that being so the present complaint not maintainable. It is further averred that immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant, Sh. Jasbir Singh was appointed as Spot Surveyor and M/s M. L. Mehta & Company were appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss. Sh. Jasbir Singh has submitted his spot survey report dated 22.05.2016 with the company. Further M/s M. L. Mehta & Company have submitted their survey report dated 24.06.2016 with the company assessing loss to the tune of Rs.24,480.18. Letter dated 22.06.2016 was sent to the complainant to produce the original RC, DL of Satnam Singh, Route Permit, Fitness, Load Challans, Original Cash Memos, Repair Bills along with one cancelled cheque consisting of account number and IFS Code etc. for the processing of the claim. Thereafter, reminders dated 11.08.2016 and 03.10.2016 were sent to the complainant, but the complainant has not complied with the formalities for processing/settling of the claim of the complainant. In the letter dated 03.10.2016, it was specifically written that in case no reply has been received, the company has no option to close the claim as no claim and it shall be closed after 10 days, that being so, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, since the complainant has not completed the formalities for the settlement of the claim of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with special and exemplary costs. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy and submitting of insurance claim is not denied, but the other factum as narrated in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with some documents Mark C-1 Copy of Insurance Cover Note, Mark C-2 Copy of DDR, Mark C-3 Cash Memo No.319, Mark C-4 Copy Bill dated 03.06.2016, Mark C-5 Copy of Bill No.378, Mark C-6 Bill No.4163, Mark C-7 Bill No.1075, Mark C-8 Bill dated 24.05.2016, Mark C-9 Copy of Bill dated 23.05.2016, Mark C-10 Bill No.722, Mark C-11 Copy of Notice along with Postal Receipts, Mark C-12 Copy of RC, Mark C-13 Copy of Certificate of Fitness, Mark C-14 Goods Carriage Permit and Mark C-15 Copy of Driving License and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Thapa as Ex.OA, affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh as Ex.OB and affidavit of Sh. M. L. Mehta as Ex.OC along with some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-8 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant is that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-CB-9485, make Tata. As per version of the complainant, the said vehicle was insured with the OP for a period 10.06.2015 to 11.06.2016, after making payment of the premium of Rs.45,289/-. The vehicle of the complainant, unfortunately met with an accident on 16.05.2016 near Sofipind small bridge while saving a stray animal and accordingly, a DDR was also recorded on the same day and the estimate was got calculated from the mechanic, who assessed the total damaged loss to the vehicle of Rs.4,69,035/- and information regarding accident was also given well within time to the OP and Surveyor of the OP also inspected the vehicle at the spot and thereafter, the complainant got repaired the said vehicle from different workshops for different type of work of the vehicle and the repair cost was paid by the complainant from his own pocket and then the complainant submitted a claim to the complainant along with all documents, but the OPs failed to pay the said amount of the insurance claim, which gave a cause of action to file the instant complaint.

8. The case of the complainant refuted by the OP that on receipt of the information qua accident of the insured vehicle, the OP immediately appointed Sh. Jasbir Singh as a Spot Surveyor and M/s M. L. Mehta & Company were appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss and accordingly, the Sport Surveyor and Surveyor to assess the loss, submitted their respective reports and assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.24,480.18 and thereafter, a letter was sent to the complainant on 22.06.2016, whereby demanded some documents i.e. RC, DL, Route Permit, Fitness, Load Challans, Original Cash Memos, Repair Bills along with one cancelled cheque consisting of account number and IFS code etc. for processing the claim and even reminder was also given, but the complainant has not complied with the formalities and as such, the company has no option except to close the claim and as such, there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP and the instant complaint is without merits.

9. We have considered the respective submissions of the complainant as well as counsel for the OP and also gone through the documents and find that the complainant has brought on the file his affidavit Ex.CA and supplementary affidavit Ex.CB, whereby reiterated the entire facts as elaborated in the complaint and apart from that the complainant has also brought on the file a receipt Mark C-1 issued by the Insurance Company, whereby a premium was paid by the complainant and copy of DDR Mark C-2 and bills Mark C-3 to Mark C-10 and notice given to the OP Mark C-11 and Photostat copy of the RC of the vehicle Mark C-12.

10. We find that the OP has not denied the insurance of the vehicle in question and even the OP has also admitted that an accident occurred and on receipt of the said accident, a Surveyor was appointed, but the complainant himself failed to supply some documents. So, it means the version of the OP is only that for want of said documents, the insurance claim could not pay to the complainant, but this version of the OP is not acceptable and authenticated because Sh. Jasbir Singh, Spot Surveyor appointed by the OP himself reported in his Survey Report Ex.O-3 that he checked and verified certificate of registration, Driving License, Route Permit, Fitness valid upto, so if the documents demanded by the OP have been already checked and verified by the Surveyor and also obtained the copy, then what was the necessity to again and again demanded the same documents from the complainant. Rather, we think it is the duty of the OP to make the payment of the insurance claim on the basis of the report submitted by Spot Surveyor Sh. Jasbir Singh.

11. No doubt, the complainant alleged the loss caused to the vehicle of Rs.4,69,035/-, whereas the assessment made by Assessment Surveyor Mehta and Company, in its report Ex.O-4, the loss of Rs.24,480.18, but if we go through the report of the Assessment Surveyor M/s Mehta and Company, then we can say without any hesitation that he has not calculated all the expenses incurred for repair and new parts and as such, we are of the opinion that the report submitted by the Mehta and Company is not virtually a report to the extent of actually loss caused to the vehicle, rather it is a report prepared by the M/s M. L. Mehta and company as its own sweet will just to give financially benefit to the Insurance Company and as such, we are of the opinion that the insurance claim of the complainant is not a pre-mature rather the same has been lingering by the OP on one pretext or the other just to harass the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs.

12. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay the actually loss caused to the vehicle, which is fully mentioned in the receipts/bills Mark C-3 to Mark C-10 i.e. Rs.4,69,035/-, to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. The entire amount be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization on the whole amount as stated above i.e. claim amount, litigation expenses and compensation. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

26.06.2018 Member President