DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 1.3.2017
Decided on: 19.3.2018
Jatinder Singh aged 26 years S/o Sh.Satnam Singh resident of village Dahrian, Tehsil-Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered and Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110 002.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-126, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, Phone No.0175-2225157, 5006169 Fax No.0175-500169.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Rampal Bhathonia, Advocate,
counsel for complainant.
Sh. B. L .Bhardwaj, Advocate,
counsel for Opposite Parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jatinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his new vehicle make Mahindra Bolero Pick Up, bearing registration No.PB-11-BR-1923 insured with the OPs vide policy bearing No.526641 dated 22.12.2014 for the period from 22.12.2014 at 8.15PM to 21.12.2015 after paying premium Rs.18179/- for the sum assured value of Rs.5,53,681/-.The said vehicle was financed with Indusind bank Ltd. It is stated that the impugned vehicle of the complainant met with an accident & part of chassis of water tanki, water cooler and R.O. totally damaged in the said accident. FIR No.19 dated 20.2.2015 under Section 279/427 IPC, was registered with the Police Station, Shambhu .The complainant gave intimation about the accident of the vehicle in question to OP no.2 and also submitted all relevant documents with it. He approached and requested the OPs for the release of the claim amount but the OPs did not pay any heed to his requests and in the month of January,2017 refused to pay the claim amount. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving direction to the OPs to disburse the insurance amount to the extent of full value of Rs.,5,53,681/- and to pay Rs.5,46,319/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith costs of litigation expenses, alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of the accident .
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause or reason to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with the OPs for the period from 22.12.2014 to 21.11.2015. It is stated that on receipt of the intimation of the alleged damaged of the vehicle, Er.Anand Pal Singh Gurunay, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss. The sais surveyor submitted his report dated 17.9.2015 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,77,882/-(3,89,822-12000/- i.e. salvage = Rs.277882/-) subject to fulfillment of requisite documents and formalities. But the complainant inspite of sending repeated letters dated 25.7.2015, 23.8.2015 by the surveyor and vide registered letters dated 9.9.2015, 12.10.2015 and 22.12.2015 did not furnish the requisite information/document, failing which the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant as ‘No claim’ vide letter dated 9.2.2016. The Insurance company is ready to process the claim as assessed by the surveyor provided the complainant submits all the requisite documents as asked for by the surveyor. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Singh, complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Smt.Gian Kaur, Ex.CC affidavit of Sh.Amrik Singh, Panch of village Dharian alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Baljinder Singh, Sr.Branch Manager, OIC alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. At the out set, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that since the complainant did not submit the requisite documents inspite of sending of letters/reminders, as such the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 9.2.2016. He further submitted that the OPs are still ready to pay the claim as assessed by the surveyor provided the complainant submits all the requisite documents as asked for by the surveyor/OPs.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs for the period from 22.12.2014 to 21.11.2015. It met with an accident in front of the shop, owned by Sh.Amrik Singh , as a result whereof the water tanki , water cooler and RO installed in said shop were damaged. Said Sh.Amrik Singh, lodged FIR , dated 20.2.2015 about the accident and had wrongly recorded the name of the driver as Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, whereas, at the time of accident Sh.Jaswant Singh was driving the said vehicle, whose driving licence has been placed on record as Ex.C9. However, lateron when said Sh.Amrik Singh came to know this fact that actually the vehicle was driven by Jaswant Singh, he gave his affidavit, Ex.C10, to this effect. All the requisite documents have already been supplied to the OPs. The OPs have wrongly alleged regarding sending of letter for submission of certain documents as they have not placed on record any document in the shape of acknowledgment/receipt to prove the said fact.
8. Admittedly the duly insured vehicle in question was met with an accident. From the perusal of FIR Ex.C2, it is evident that the Sh.Amik Singh i.e. the owner of the shop in front of which the accident of the vehicle in question had taken place, got registered the same. From the contents of the FIR, it is quite clear that at the time lodging the said FIR, said Sh.Amrik Singh was not conversant with the name of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and on hearsay basis he got recorded the name of the driver as Paramjit Singh @ Pamma. In his affidavit Ex.C10, said Sh.Amrik Singh, has deposed that in the FIR he got recorded the name of the driver as Paramjit Singh , whereas infact the same was driven by Sh.Jaswant Sinngh S/o Udham Singh R/o village Daharian Patta. We have perused the Investigator’s report , Ex.OP5, wherein under the head CONCLUSION, said investigator has reported that as per verbal information given by Sh.Paramjit Singh @ Pamma and his wife Smt. Parveen , the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi son of Jaswant Singh and not by Jaswant Singh s/o Udam Singh. It may be stated here that merely on the basis of oral assertion of the aforesaid persons, it cannot be ascertained that at the time of accident Sh.Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi son of Jaswant Singh was driving the vehicle in question particularly when Sh.Amrit Singh in his affidavit has deposed that Sh.Jaswant Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that the OPs were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’ and are liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. From the copy of surveyor report, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,77,882. Thus, the OPs are not only liable to pay Rs.2,77,882/- but are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith costs of litigation .
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:
- To pay Rs. Rs.2,77,882/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 9.2.2016 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses
The OPs are further directed to comply the aforesaid directions within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 19.3.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
