Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased new LPT2518/48 TC Ex Truck Chassis fitted with cowls and other accessories bearing RC No.PB-10-EH-5381 from Dada Motors Ludhiana for Rs.18,41,172/- on 16.01.2014 for the purpose of starting its earning self employment and livelihood under the name and style of M/s.Delhi Panipat Carrier Goods and after affixing certain more accessories, the costs of said vehicle comes more than 19 lakhs. Alongwith said purchased vehicle from Dada Motors, its insurance against the IDV of Rs.19 lakhs has been provided by said Dada Motors for the premium of Rs.45,196/- valid for the period 16.01.2014 to 15.01.2015 vide policy No.431800/31/34021/4/00007917. Further alleges that said vehicle parked in front of office after duly locked its window and sterling was stolen on the night of 14/15-04-2014 after breaking window and sterling lock alongwith original documents of RC, permit, insurance etc. In this regard, FIR No. 56 dated 21.05.2014 was registered under section 370 & 411 IPC with P.S.Division No. 6, Ludhiana. Thereater, two persons namely Avtar Singh and Ajay Ganotra were arrested by the police on 25.06.2014 and recovered the truck body alongwith Rs.20,000/- cash from them and this regard, Opposite Parties were also informed by the complainant. Thereafter, the police authorities presented the challan against such accused in the Ludhiana courts which was registered as CH/6/2915 as State Vs. Avtar Singh and Ajay Ganotra. The Opposite Parties also carried investigation and appointed surveyor to assess the loss which was assessed to Rs.19 lakhs as per knowledge of the complainant. In the meantime, Opposite Parties directly transferred the sum of Rs.12 lakhs on 3.11.2015 in the bank account of the complainant while denied to pay the balance amount on the ground of deciding of police case against the accused and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the interest @ 9% per annum from 15.04.2014 to 3.11.2015 on Rs.12 lakhs holding responsible the Opposite Parties for rendering services/ negligent services and for adopting Unfair Trade Practice for not paying full claim as per surveyor report as well as for delaying the matter for such long period and to penalize with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that immediately on the receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed and the surveyor was appointed who submitted his report dated 06.06.2014 and after scrutinising the documents placed in the claim file and during the processing of the claim, a portion of the truck body/ tyres were trance by the police for which an amount of Rs.80,000/- was recovered and deposited in the Hon’ble Court and since the criminal case yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Court on the request of the complainant, the Opposite Parties recommended the claim to the higher authorities for approval on account payment. Thereafter, as per the approval of the higher authorities of the Opposite Parties, an amount of Rs.12 lakhs has been paid to the complainant being on account payment on 3.11.2015. Thereafter, the complainant approached for the balance payment of the claim and submitted the untrace report alongwith court order. Again the Opposite Parties appointed two separate surveyors and who after completing all the formalities and after due application of mind, has assessed the net amount payable of Rs.5,54,750/- and submitted the same with Opposite Parties alongwith the consent form. After the receipt of the reports from respective surveyors and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file, the complainant was called by the Opposite Parties to comment on the fact that from the copy of the compromise, it is observed that the complainant has not mentioned anything about the insurance claim in the court and the compromise reached with the accused is without informing the Opposite Parties and it seems that there is a collusion between the accused and the complainant. After receipt of the reply to the query raised by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 2.12.2016, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 30.01.2017 approved the balance claim of Rs.5,53,000/- and sent the same to its Regional Office for approval, but after the receipt of the decision of the competent authority of Opposite Parties, regarding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant qua the additional amount/ balance amount of the claim, the Opposite Parties vide its letter dated 25.10.2017 has repudiated the claim of the complainant because the complainant has already reached a compromise without informing the Opposite Parties and without their consent. Hence the grounds of repudiation is legal, valid and enforceable and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.RA to RF alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R68 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions of the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant has purchased new LPT2518/48 TC Ex Truck Chassis fitted with cowls and other accessories bearing RC No.PB-10-EH-5381 from Dada Motors Ludhiana for Rs.18,41,172/- on 16.01.2014 for the purpose of starting its earning self employment and livelihood under the name and style of M/s.Delhi Panipat Carrier Goods and after affixing certain more accessories, the costs of said vehicle comes more than 19 lakhs. Alongwith said purchased vehicle from Dada Motors, its insurance against the IDV of Rs.19 lakhs has been provided by said Dada Motors for the premium of Rs.45,196/- valid for the period 16.01.2014 to 15.01.2015 vide policy No.431800/31/34021/4/00007917. Further alleges that said vehicle parked in front of office after duly locked its window and sterling was stolen on the night of 14/15-04-2014 after breaking window and sterling lock alongwith original documents of RC, permit, insurance etc. In this regard, FIR No. 56 dated 21.05.2014 was registered under section 370 & 411 IPC with P.S.Division No. 6, Ludhiana. Thereafter, two persons namely Avtar Singh and Ajay Ganotra were arrested by the police on 25.06.2014 and recovered the truck body alongwith Rs.20,000/- cash from them and this regard, Opposite Parties were also informed by the complainant. Thereafter, the police authorities presented the challan against such accused in the Ludhiana courts which was registered as CH/6/2915 as State Vs. Avtar Singh and Ajay Ganotra. The Opposite Parties also carried investigation and appointed surveyor to assess the loss which was assessed to Rs.19 lakhs as per knowledge of the complainant. In the meantime, Opposite Parties directly transferred the sum of Rs.12 lakhs on 3.11.2015 in the bank account of the complainant while denied to pay the balance amount on the ground of deciding of police case against the accused and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that immediately on the receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed and the surveyor was appointed who submitted his report dated 06.06.2014 and after scrutinising the documents placed in the claim file and during the processing of the claim, a portion of the truck body/ tyres were trance by the police for which an amount of Rs.80,000/- was recovered and deposited in the Hon’ble Court and since the criminal case yet to be decided by the Hon’ble Court on the request of the complainant, the Opposite Parties recommended the claim to the higher authorities for approval on account payment. Thereafter, as per the approval of the higher authorities of the Opposite Parties, an amount of Rs.12 lakhs has been paid to the complainant being on account payment on 3.11.2015. Thereafter, the complainant approached for the balance payment of the claim and submitted the untrace report alongwith court order. Again the Opposite Parties appointed two separate surveyors and who after completing all the formalities and after due application of mind, has assessed the net amount payable of Rs.5,54,750/- and submitted the same with Opposite Parties alongwith the consent form. After the receipt of the reports from respective surveyors and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file, the complainant was called by the Opposite Parties to comment on the fact that from the copy of the compromise, it is observed that the complainant has not mentioned anything about the insurance claim in the court and the compromise reached with the accused is without informing the Opposite Parties and it seems that there is a collusion between the accused and the complainant. After receipt of the reply to the query raised by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 2.12.2016, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 30.01.2017 approved the balance claim of Rs.5,53,000/- and sent the same to its Regional Office for approval, but after the receipt of the decision of the competent authority of Opposite Parties, regarding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant qua the additional amount/ balance amount of the claim, the Opposite Parties vide its letter dated 25.10.2017 has repudiated the claim of the complainant because the complainant has already reached a compromise without informing the Opposite Parties and without their consent. Hence the grounds of repudiation is legal, valid and enforceable and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. As detailed above, after the receipt of claim, it was duly registered by the Opposite Parties and M/s.Bee Vee investigating Agency was appointed to investigate the claim who after investigation submitted their report dated 06.06.2014 alongwith the enclosures Ex.R26. It is also not the denial of the parties that during the processing of the claim, a portion of truck body/ tyres were traced by the police and an amount of Rs.80,000/- was recovered and in the Hon’ble Court and the competent authority of the Opposite Parties recommended the claim to their higher authorities for approval of claim on account payment and they approved the same on account payment for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs subject to completion of usual formalities including tender of RC of the truck in question and said amount was admittedly released to the complainant. As referred above, after the receipt of the reports from respective surveyors and after scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file, the complainant was called by the Opposite Parties to comment on the fact that from the copy of the compromise, it is observed that the complainant has not mentioned anything about the insurance claim in the court and the compromise reached with the accused is without informing the Opposite Parties and it appears that there is a collusion between the accused and the complainant. After receipt of the reply to the query raised by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 2.12.2016, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 30.01.2017 approved the balance claim of Rs.5,53,000/- and sent the same to its Regional Office for approval, but after the receipt of the decision of the competent authority of Opposite Parties, regarding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant qua the additional amount/ balance amount of the claim, the Opposite Parties vide its letter dated 25.10.2017 has repudiated the claim of the complainant because the complainant has already reached a compromise without informing the Opposite Parties and without their consent. As such, we are of the view that since the complainant has already settled the claim of balance amount with the accused ‘out of the court’ and without the consent of the Opposite Parties, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated:28.04.2022.
