DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  78

                                                Instituted on:    01.03.2017

                                                Decided on:       12.06.2017

Harpinder Singh son of Tarsem Singh, resident of Village Ladbanjara Kalan, Danna Patti, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sector 17, Surindra Market, SCO No.101, Divisional Office, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3.     Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. & Office, A-25/57, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S. Nandpuri, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Harpinder Singh, 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 Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration number PB-23-D-1961 for the period from 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2016 under policy bearing number 233502/31/2016/863 by paying the requisite premium. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 10.5.2016, the complainant went to village Uppli, Tehsil and District Sangrur to meet his relatives and on the night of 10.5.2016, the vehicle in question unfortunately caught fire due to sparking of electric wires and the vehicle in question damaged due to fire, intimation of which was given to the Ops. The complainant also gave the information to the Police of PS Sadar Sunam. Thereafter the officials of the OPs visited the spot and verified the facts about the incident. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs did not settle the claim despite serving of legal notice dated 7.1.2017 upon the OPs. 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 the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the claim of the complainant is still pending, therefore, the present complaint is premature. On merits,  it has been admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops for the period from 14.6.2015 to 12.6.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.  It is also admitted that the complainant gave intimation on 17.5.2016 regarding the loss due to fire by sparking of electric wires and the Ops deputed Er. Bhupesh Bhardwaj, surveyor and loss assessor for spot inspection, who visited the spot and observed that no electric wire was found during his survey and the complainant could not provide his driving license. It is further averred that after receiving spot survey report, the Ops appointed Shri KK Singhi Surveyor and Loss Assessor for final assessment and the surveyor assessed Rs.1,80,000/- as gross loss on total loss basis and the insured also accepted the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in full and final settlement.  It is further stated that after examining the entire record, the OP sent a registered letter dated 6.3.2017 to the complainant for producing his driving license, copy of receipt of transfer fee as the RC of the vehicle was transferred on 25.6.2015 and insurance was got on 16.6.2015 etc, but no explanation was given by the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-13 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

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

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration number PB-23-D-1961 from the OPs for the period from 14.06.2015 to 13.06.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.9480/-, as is evident from the copy of insurance policy Ex.C-3 on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question suffered fire on the night of 10.5.2016, as is evident from the copy of DDR Ex.C-8 and thereafter the Ops appointed surveyor and loss assessor, who also submitted their reports,  copies of which are on record as Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-8.  But, in the present case, the only objection of the Ops is that they have still not repudiated the claim of the complainant nor settled the same and has contended that the complaint is premature, which should be dismissed on this ground alone.  We have also perused the whole file and failed to find out any repudiation letter on record nor there is any evidence produced by the complainant on record.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to decide the present claim of the complainant within a period of 15 days of receipt of copy of the order.

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to consider and decide the claim of the complainant within a period of 15 days of receipt of copy of this order and intimate the decision to the complainant immediately by registered post.  It is made clear that if the complainant still remains unsatisfied with the decision of the Ops, it is open for him to again approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.  The Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This amount be paid to the complainant within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        June 12, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member