Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/74/2015

Harwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. H.S.Sidhu

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 74 of 2015

                                           Date of institution : 18.08.2015                                                  Date of decision    : 09.09.2016

Harwinder Singh son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, resident of House No.19, Ward No.1, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon District Fatehgarh Sahib through his Special attorney Sh. Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, branch at Khamanon, opposite Grain Market(Anaj Mandi), Tehsil Khamanon District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Branch Manager.
2. Oriental House, A 25/27 Asif Ali Road New Delhi 110002, through its Manager.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

 

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                       

Present :  Sh.H.S.Sidhu, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Harwinder Singh son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, resident of House No.19, Ward No.1, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon District Fatehgarh Sahib through his Special attorney Sh. Gurbachan Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant got insured his Ford Icon Car bearing registration No. PB-49-A-8200, vide policy No. 233693/31/2014/3277 dated 18.01.2014, from the OPs for the sum assured of Rs.13,160,00/-.  The said policy was valid from 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015. Unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 30.03.2014 at Bassi Pathana, when the same was driven by Sh. Gurbachan Singh, father of the complainant. The policy holder/complainant was abroad at the time of accident and the accident was immediately reported to the OPs. Thereafter, father of the complainant fulfilled all the requirements/formalities, as asked by the OPs and even on the date of accident the OPs sent their surveyor, who conducted the spot survey. Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 20.06.2014 from K.S.Chandok, authorized Investigator, to join the investigation. The said letter was replied by the father of the complainant, who informed the surveyor that the complainant/policy holder cannot come to India as he is residing abroad, and the father of the complainant is ready to join the investigation, as the said car is in his custody and the same was driven by him at the time of accident. All the relevant documents were submitted with the OPs. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was got repaired under the instructions of the OPs from Saluja Ford Showroom-cum-workshop at C-43 Industrial Area, phase-3, S.A.S.Nagar(Mohali). An amount of Rs.95,717/- was spent on the repair of the said vehicle. The father of the complainant was regularly  visiting the OPs for getting the said lawful claim but all in vain. The complainant also got served a legal notice to OPs, but no amount of claim has been released by the OPs to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.95,717/- along with interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.         The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable as the same cannot be filed through special power of attorney under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and only the Civil Court is competent to try the present dispute. As regards to the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that it has been alleged that policy holder lives abroad being NRI but the claim papers have been signed by him. The OPs in order to verify the claim papers has demanded the copy of the Passport from the attorney, which is not produced intentionally, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. However, on receipt of intimation of loss the OPs have immediately deputed Sh. Kewal Kumar IRDA Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Mohali, to assess the loss, who in his report dated 21.04.2014 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.85,150/-. The insured has failed to get the spot survey by immediately informing the OPs and to the police, which raised suspicion  and Sh. K.S.Chandok, Investigator, was deputed to investigate the case, who in his report dated 04.09.2014 found that Sh. Harvinder Singh is an NRI and living in Italy and he failed to join the investigation. He further found that insured neither visited the workshop nor met with surveyor Sh. Kewal Kumar Rana during repair, so authenticity of the documents submitted by the insured are subject to the clarification.  It was also found that the insured had already got a claim on this car on 01.01.2014 from Bharati Axa Insurance Company. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made  in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove the case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copies of documents i.e. special power of attorney Ex. C-1, original policy Ex. C-2, Registration certificate of vehicle Ex. C-3, driving license Ex. C-4, letter dated 20.06.2014 Ex. C-5, reply to letter Ex. C-6, original repair order Ex. C-7, copy of customer receipts Ex. C-8, legal notice Ex. C-9 and Ex. C-10,  postal receipt Ex. C-9/A and Ex. C-10/A, his affidavit Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. A.K. Sehgal, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. OP-1,  affidavit of K.S.Chandok Ex. OP-2, affidavit of Sh. Kewal Kumar Ex. OP-3, true copies of documents i.e. insurance policy Ex. OP-4, repudiation letter Ex. OP-5, survey report Ex. OP-6, letter dated 21.06.2014 Ex. OP-6, letter dated 19.07.2014 Ex. OP-7, application Ex. OP-8, statement Ex. OP-9, statement Ex.OP-10, certificate Ex. OP-11, cover note Ex. OP-12, statement Ex. OP-13, claim form Ex. OP-14, survey report Ex. OP-15 and closed the evidence

5.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OPs had closed the claim case of the complainant in an arbitrary manner, despite supplying the requested documents by the complainant. He stated that the vehicle was duly insured as it is evident from the insurance policy i.e Ex.C-2.The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant deserves to be compensated for the act and conduct of the OPs, as they have committed deficiency in service by closing the claim of the complainant.

6.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has stated that the claim had been closed in view of the elaborated investigation report i.e Ex.OP-6. He submitted that the OPs had been time and again requesting the complainant to supply certain requisite documents, enabling the OPs to settle the claim on merits but the complainant failed to supply the same. The ld. counsel argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed in view of the findings mentioned in the investigation report i.e Ex.OP-6.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions. It is established from the material placed on record that the complainant was having a valid insurance policy and the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident, thereafter the said vehicle was also got repaired. It is further established from the documents placed on record by the OPs that the complainant was not able to provide certain documents on time, thus the claim was declared as no claim. The OPs had also got the loss assessed and the surveyor vide his report dated 21/04/2014(Ex.OP-15) had assessed the total amount of Rs.85,150/-(Eighty five thousands  one hundred and fifty rupees only). In our opinion the surveyor/loss assessor report i.e Ex.OP-15 is well reasoned and the same is accepted.

8.                   Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the OPs has committed negligence by not allowing the claim of the complainant on the basis of the surveyor/loss assessor report i.e Ex.OP-15, thereby committed deficiency of service.

9.                   Hence, we direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 85,150/-(Eighty five thousands one hundred and fifty rupees only) as per the report of surveyor/loss assessor. We also find complainant entitled to compensation on account of mental agony amounting to Rs.5000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3000/-.

10.                 OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, otherwise OP No.1 shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded. The present complaint is hereby partly accepted. 

  

11.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 26.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:09.09.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member