Punjab

Sangrur

CC/28/2015

Parwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen. Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Ratol

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    28

                                                Instituted on:      14.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.07.2015

 

Parwinder Singh son of Paramjit Singh son of Kishan Singh, R/o Village Kalajhar, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company through its Manager, SCO No.135-136, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For Opposite party     :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Parwinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that  the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting his truck bearing registration number PB-13-R-4957 insured by paying the requisite premium of Rs.19,898/- and the OP issued insurance policy bearing number 1501902334101857 for the period from 31.3.2010 to 30.3.2011 and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.8,40,000/-. It is further averred that the truck in question was purchased by the complainant by taking loan in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.

 

2.             It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 3.2.2011 while it was coming from Nasik to Ludhiana. It is further averred that the truck in question struck against the dipper number MP-09-JR-1115, which was wrongly parked on the road, near Mannpur, PS Maheshwara, District Gurgaon.  In the said accident, the driver of the truck also died. It is further averred that FIR number 26/11 dated 4.2.2011 was also registered against the driver of the said dipper. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the OP about the accident and the OP informed about the same to its Branch at Indour and spot survey was conducted and as per the advice of the surveyor, the vehicle was shifted to Samana.  The vehicle was also inspected by the surveyor Shri Sandeep of Patiala and complainant submitted all the documents to the said surveyor.  It is further stated that as per his advice, the vehicle was got repaired from Dhanauri Mechanical Works, Samana, M/s. Punjab Motors Parts, Bhawanigarh, Vishav Karma Truck Body Maker, Samana, Sukhdev Body Makers and other repairers and by this way the complainant spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the repairs of the truck and submitted all the bills to the OP, but the OP did not settle the claim.  As such, complainant earlier filed complaint number 61 dated 27.1.2012 which was allowed vide orders dated 8.7.2013 and the Op was directed to decide the claim within 45 days. It is further stated that all the documents were again submitted to the OP on 22.8.2013, but the claim was not settled.  Ultimately, the complainant filed execution and lastly the OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.11.2014. This Forum also imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- on the OP vide orders dated 14.11.2014.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident.  The stand of the OP in the written reply is that the complainant did not submit the required documents for settlement of the claim despite repeated demands. It has been denied that the truck in question was got repaired from the repairers. It is also denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on the repairs of the damaged truck.  It is stated that the complainant did not submit the documents to the Op, as such, it was repudiated to be no claim. It is stated that the complainant did not submit the route permit and load challan to the OP, as such, the claim is said to has been rightly repudiated.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of final report, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3 copies of FIR, Ex.C-4 copy of PMR, Ex.C-5 copy of PMR report, Ex.C-6 copy of DL, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14 copies of bills, Ex.C-15 copy of statement of Parminder Singh, Ex.C-16 copy of summoning order, Ex.C-17 copy of policy, Ex.C-18 copy of RC, Ex.C-19 copy of certificate of fitness, Ex.C-20 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1 copy of repudiation letter dated 13.1.2014, Ex.OP-2 copy of order dated 3.4.2014, Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 copies of letters, Ex.OP-6 copy of survey report and closed evidence.

 

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

 

6.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-R-4957 was insured with the OP under policy number 1501902334101857 for the period from 31.3.2010 to 30.3.2011 for Rs.8,40,000/-.  Further it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 3.2.2011 near Mannpur, PS Maheshwara, District Gurgaon, when it was coming from Nasik to Ludhiana.  It is also admitted fact of the OP that after receiving the intimation regarding accident of the vehicle in question, OP appointed surveyor to assess the loss.  But, the stand of the OP is that the complainant did not submit the required documents to the surveyor for settlement of the claim despite his best efforts, as such the claim was not settled.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant has already submitted all the required documents to the OP for settlement of the claim, but the Op failed to do so.

 

7.             It is on the record that earlier the complainant also filed a complaint number 61 dated 27.1.2012, which was decided on 8.7.2013 with a direction to the OP to decide the claim within 45 days.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant again submitted all the documents to the OP on 22.8.2013, but the claim was not settled by the OP.  Ultimately, the complainant filed an execution and vide orders dated 3.4.2014 this Forum again directed the OP to decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days, but the claim was not settled as such, the Op repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.11.2014 and a fine of Rs.5000/- was imposed upon the Op vide orders dated 14.11.2014 for non compliance of the orders of this Forum in time.

       

8.             It is worth mentioning here that in the present case, the driver of the vehicle in question also died in the accident, of which FIR was also recorded, copy of which is Ex.C-2.  Ex.C-5 is the copy of post mortem report.  Further it is an admitted fact that the vehicle damaged extensively in the accident, of which intimation was given to the OP.  It is also admitted fact that the OP appointed surveyor for the assessment of the loss of the truck in question.  But, the OP has not produced on record the copy of survey report to show what amount of loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the OP. There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why it did not produce the copy of survey report on record, which clearly shows that the Op has intentionally and deliberately withheld the same.    

 

9.             Further perusal of the complaint file shows that the complainant has produced on record the copies of the bills regarding repair of the truck in question, which are on record as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14.  Ex.C-7 is copy of the bill issued by Manpreet Diesel works for Rs.7750/-, Ex.C-8 bill issued by Lalli Auto Electrician for Rs.24600/-, Ex.C-9 copy of bill issued by Vishavkarma Motor Repair Works for Rs.52,000/-, Ex.C-10 is the copy of bill issued by M/s. Punjab Motors Parts for Rs.22,625/- and Ex.C-11 for Rs.2560/-, Ex.C-12 is copy of bill issued by M/s. Dhanauri Mechanical Works for Rs.12900/- and Ex.C-13 is the copy of bill issued by Vishavkaram Truck Body Maker for Rs.1,92,000/- and bill Ex.C-14 issued by Denter for Rs.4800/-, total Rs.3,19,235/-.   There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that how he claimed the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the complaint, more so when he has not produced on record the bills for the same.  In this case, the fact remains that the vehicle of the complainant damaged in the accident, which was got repaired from the repairer as per the details of the bills Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14 on record.

 

10.            Another contention of the learned counsel for the OP for not settling the claim is that the complainant did not supply the route permit and load challan to the OP.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though the complainant has submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim including copy of FIR, copy of registration certificate, copies of bills etc.  to the OP, but the OP is still demanding the copy of route permit and load challan, which are not at all required for the settlement of the claim.  In the present case, it is admitted fact that the vehicle in question damaged in the accident and it suffered loss.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited G. Kothainachiar versus United India Insurance Company Limited 2008(1) CPC 186 (NC), wherein the Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that fitness certificate of vehicle was not available on the date of accident showing violation of provision of Motor Vehicle Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission repelled the contention of insurance company and allowed the claim.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited New India Assurance Company Limited versus Ashok Kumar 2006(1) JRC 445 (Uttranchal State Commission), wherein the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of accident, which is breach of the terms of the policy.  It is held that if overloading is taken to be correct, it has got no nexus with the accident and repudiation of the claim was held to be unjustified.  In the present case also, it is on the record that the vehicle in question struck with another truck parked on the road and as such, there is no nexus with the accident of any over load.  The learned counsel for the OP has also cited Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Dharwin K. David 2011(2) CPC 349 to support his contention regarding the requirement of the route permit.  But, as held above, in the present case since the route permit had no nexus with the accident, we feel that the same is not at all required. 

 

11.            As discussed above, in the present case though the OP appointed the surveyor for assessing the loss, but the OP has not produced on record any report of  the surveyor.  The complainant has claimed the claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but has produced on record the bills of repairer to the tune of Rs.3,19,235/- only.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that since the complainant has not got repaired the vehicle from any authorised workshop of the company, we are unable to allow the full claim to the tune of Rs.3,19,235/-.  We further feel that ends of justice would be met if the claim is allowed on non standard basis to the tune of 75% of the amount, which comes to Rs.2,39,426/-.

 

12.            The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

13.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,39,426/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 13.11.2014 till realisation. Op is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

 

14.            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.

                July 2, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member