Punjab

Sangrur

CC/783/2015

Dalvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Vehicles Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Shergill

17 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                      

                                                Complaint No.  783

                                                Instituted on:    05.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       17.05.2016

 

Dalvir Singh son of Nazar Singh, resident of Village Gagarpur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Authorised Signatory.

2.     Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Rajpura Road, Patiala, through its Authorised Signatory.

3.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 22, Number Phatak, Leela Bhawan, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

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

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.3.            :       Shri M.S.Ratol, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                KC Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dalvir 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 in the month of July, 2012 the complainant purchased Mahindra Balero Pickup from OP number 2 which was got insured from OP number 1 for the period from 14.7.2012 to 13.7.2013 and thereafter again the complainant got the vehicle insured from OP number 2 for the period from 17.7.2013 to 16.7.2014 and for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 for Rs.3,60,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.10,200/-. It is further averred that the complainant has been using the vehicle for his personal use.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 12.3.2015 and damaged badly, of which DDR number 16 dated 13.3.2015 was got registered at PS Bhawanigarh and the complainant took the vehicle to OP number 2 for its repairs.  The Op number 2 intimated about the claim to OP number 3, who appointed the surveyor and the OP number 2 prepared the estimate of loss at Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant supplied all the required documents to the surveyor of the OPs, but the complainant was shocked to known when the surveyor of the OP number 3 told that policy bearing number 1110063114P102255367 is fake one and has not been issued by their company. As such, the complainant approached OP number 3, who confirmed that the policy is fake one and the same has not been issued by their office. Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 1 and asked to make the payment of repairs of the vehicle, but the OP number 1 refused to do so.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to handover the repaired vehicle to the complainant free of cost and also to issue genuine/valid policy to the complainant, to pay Rs.500/- per day on account of non use of the vehicle and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In the written reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2,  it has been admitted that the complainant purchased Mahindra Bollero from them. However, it has been denied that the vehicle was again insured by the OP for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 or the premium of the said insurance was paid by the complainant to the OP number 1 or cover note of the insurance policy was ever issued by Ops number 1 and 2.  It is further denied that the vehicle in question suffered an accident or any FIR dated 12.3.2015 was lodged.  However, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OPs for the repair of the vehicle and at the request of the complainant, the estimate was prepared for Rs.70099/-, which the vehicle has incurred the loss. It is further averred that the OPs requested the complainant a number of times to get the delivery of the vehicle after payment of the repair charges, but the complainant failed to do so.  It is further stated that the insurance policy supplied by the complainant is not genuine one.  It has been further denied that the insurance of the vehicle in question was done by the OP number 1 for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015.  It is stated further that even the complainant lodged false application against the OP before the SSP Sangrur, as such the complaint is not maintainable. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, as no premium has ever been received by the OPs nor any cover note has been issued by it.  On merits,  it has been admitted that the complainant got the insurance policy for the period from 14.7.2012 to 13.7.2013 and 17.7.2013 to 16.7.2014. It has been stated that the insurance policy for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 was never issued by the OP number 3.  It has been denied that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.3.2015 and lodging of the DDR has also been denied.  It is stated further that after filing of the complaint by the complainant, the OP on receiving the summons appointed Shri NK Bhalla, surveyor to assess the loss, who submitted his detailed report.  It is stated that the policy is fake one and the same has not been issued by the OP, as such, no claim is payable by the OP number 3.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OPs number 1 and 2 denying the allegations of the OPs number 1 and 2 and further reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of policies, Ex.C-5 coy of police complaint number 3428 dated 7.5.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of DDR number 16 dated 13.3.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced  Ex.OP-3/1 and Ex.Op3/2 copies of letters, Ex.OP3/3 copy of motor final survey report, Ex.OP3/4 copy of vehicle intimation report, Ex.OP3/5 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP3/6 copy of application to SSP Sangrur, Ex.OP3/7 copy of endorsement to ASI Malkeet Singh, Ex.OP3/8 copy of report dated 29.8.2015, Ex.OP3/9 copy of report, Ex.OP3/10 copy of statement of Dalvir Singh and closed evidence.

 

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

 

8.             The complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP number 2 and has also got the vehicle insured through OP number 2 in the year 2012 and after that the complainant obtained the services of OP number 1 and has also got the vehicle insured for the period from 17.7.2013 to 16.7.2014 through OP number 1.  Thereafter the complainant again got the vehicle insured through OP number 1 for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 by paying the requisite premium.  But, the OP number 2 has denied having got the policy issued through them.  The OP number 3 has admitted that the insurance policy for the period from 14.7.2012 to 13.7.2013 and 17.7.2013 to 16.7.2014 have been issued by them through OPs number 1 and 2.  However, the Op number 3 has denied having issued the policy in question for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015.  The complainant came to know about the genuineness of the policy when his vehicle met with an accident on 12.3.2015 and the Op number 3 refused to settle the claim on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant is not insured with the OP number 3.

 

9.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the policy for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015, which is on record as Ex.C-4 is the main point of controversy for adjudication before this forum.  The version of the complainant is that like the other two previous policies, he has made the payment to OP number 1 and the policy in question also bears the stamp of the OP number 1 and  in its written reply the OPs number 1 has not denied this.  The OP number 1 and 2 have simply denied that the policy was not issued by them and they have stated that the policy was prepared by the complainant, but the OPs number 1 and 2 though have availed three opportunities to place on the record their evidence in support of their version, but have not placed any evidence on record.  The version of the complainant is also corroborated by OP number 3 that previously two policies have been issued to the complainant through OPs number 1 and 2.  The police complaint was also filed by the complainant, but the same is still under investigation.

 

10.           Further with regard to the issuance of the policy document, Ex.C-4, the Ops number 1 and 2 have simply submitted that ‘the complainant levelled false and manipulated allegations that the insurance of the vehicle for the period from 13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 has been done by the OP number 1’.  But, then on the perusal of the document Ex.C-4, we find that it bears the stamp of OP number 1 i.e. “RAJ VEHICLES PVT LIMITED SANGRUR’ and the OP number  1 chose to remain silent on this point.  As such, the version of the Ops number 1 and 2 that the policy in question has not been got issued through them is not admissible and if any employee of OP number 1 has issued the policy in question, then also OP number 1 cannot wriggle out of his responsibility, when the policy document Ex.C-4 bears the stamp of the OP number 1.

 

11.           During the arguments , the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2  has submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as there is complex question of law are involved and only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try and decide the case. But, on the perusal of the record, we find that Ops number 1 and 2 have not placed even a single document in their defence as evidence, from which it could be ascertained that there is any complex questions of law involved in the present complaint. It seems that the Ops number 1 and 2 have raised this argument just to delay and avoid the decision of the Forum.  Further to support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Dr. J.J. Merchant versus Shrinath Chaturvedi 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 700 (Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that complainant may not be directed to approach Civil court, as the Consumer Protection Act and the Rules prescribed adequate procedure for speedy disposal of complaints.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Shiv Kumar Aggarwal versus Arun Tondon and another 2007(2) CPJ 321 (NC)  held that  the Consumer Forums are headed by Senior Judicial Officers, who are capable of dealing with complex questions, as such, the complaint cannot be thrown on this point. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Waraich Filling Station versus M/s. Rajwinder Singh Grill Shop, First Appeal Number 1791 of 2010, decided on 19.08.2014 relying upon the judgments such as Dr. J.J. Merchant and others versus Shrinath Chaturvedi and Shiv Kumar Aggarwal versus Arun Tondon (supra).

 

12.           The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since the OP number 1 has issued the policy in question to the complainant for the insurance of the vehicle, it is responsible for the same and in support of his version, he has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission delivered in Revision Petition No. 1781 of 2013, decided on 17.03.2016 in the case G. Krishna Kumar and another versus Har Auto Pvt. Ltd and others , in which it has been held that “the company is liable for the acts of his agent and is answerable for the money having been collected by Mr. Ramesh Rai and order booking form issued by him which carries the name of the respondent/dealer herein. If the order booking form is issued in the name of the dealer, the customer would not make any extra efforts to ascertain whether the person collecting the money is the authorised representative of the dealer or not”.

 

13.           Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab Commission delivered in Revision Petition No.21 of 2013 titled as Universal Chemists, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital Faridkot versus Bhai Kanahiya Cancer Roko Seva Society (Regd) and others.  In this case, it has been held that “we are unable to endorse the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had taken up the ground of fraud in that complaint. No such plea of fraud has been taken and the plea, in fact, is that for the purpose of reimbursement, fake bills are being issued by opposite party number 1, as he is overcharging for the medicines, being purchased from him. Such dispute can be very well decided during the summary proceedings.”

 

14.           So, from the facts mentioned above, it seems that  OP number 1 by handing over the fake policy to the complainant is grossly negligent and had his vehicle met with an accident of serious nature claiming the life of the third party in that case the complainant would have suffered a lot in terms of money, besides, harassment. 

 

15.           As such, in the light of above discussion, we find that the OP number 1 is deficient in service and accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to hand over the repaired vehicle to the complainant free of cost and fresh valid policy be got issued from some insurance company.  We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

16.           This order of ours be complied with 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.

                May 17, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member