Haryana

Ambala

CC/537/2010

M/S SINGLA RICE MILL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VIPUL SINGH

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

          Complaint Case No.    : 537 of 2010

          Date of Institution       :  24.12.2010

          Date of Decision         :  31.03.2016

M/s Singla Rice Mills through its Proprietor Atul Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Singla, Shop No.85, New Grain Market, Ambala City.

                                                                                                ……Complainant.

Versus

1.         Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having registered office at 19, Reliance Centre, Wal Chand Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.

2.         Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. having  Corporate office at Naigaum Cross Road Next to Royal Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400031.

3.         Magma FIN Corp. Limited having registered office at 24 Park Street Calcutta-700016.

4.         Magma FIN Corp. Limited having Branch office at 167/18 Sadar Bazar, Near Ambala Cantt.                                                                                               

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.            

Present:          Sh. Vipul Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. counsel for Ops No.1 & 2.

                        Sh. Puneet Sirpaul, Adv. counsel for OPs No.3.

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that complainant-Atul Kumar is sole proprietor of the firm  M/s Singla Rice Mills and got his truck bearing regn. No.HR37D/0417 insured from Ops No.1 & 2 through OP No.3  for the period from 13.02.2009 to 12.02.2010 which met with an accident on 28.05.2009 at 8.00 P.M. Information was given to Ops No.1 & 2, upon which, surveyor was appointed who conducted spot inspection and photographed the accidental truck.  The truck remained in Raj Agro Aids from 01.06.2009 to 11.11.2009 for repair and a total amount of Rs.1,97,138/- incurred on the repair but the Ops denied his claim without any cause. So, a legal notice dated 20.05.2010 served upon the Ops but of no avail. Thus complainant has contended that Ops have denied  his claim intentionally which is a deficiency in service as well as negligence on the part of Ops. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause has been  preferred by the complainant.

 2.                    Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels and filed written statements. OPs No.1 & 2 in their written statement raised preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, no cause of action, suppression of material facts and no territorial jurisdiction since the policy in  question was issued by Calcutta office of the opposite party at Calcutta and no agreement of insurance as alleged was ever entered at Ambala. On merits, it has been urged that insured/complainant neither given any intimation about the alleged accident to them nor any surveyor was ever deputed by the answering OP for the spot survey.  It has been also denied that  complainant ever submitted the alleged report of surveyor with them or their any surveyor  told the complainant to get his vehicle repaired from any dealer. Thus the complainant himself has violated the terms & conditions of the policy  and was not entitled for any claim.  Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied being concocted one and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                        Ops No.3 & 4 filed their written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint as the relationship of complainant and the answering Ops is governed by Hire Purchase Finance Agreement and  as per clause 23 set out in the terms & conditions of the said HPA, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, according to which only the courts at Kolkatta  shall have the jurisdiction to try the present complaint. On merits, it has been urged that answering OP got insured the truck in question from Ops No.1 & 2 for a period from 13.02.2009 to 12.02.2010 being financer but is not liable in the matter, in any manner, as they have relationship with complainant under a contract of HPA. Rest of the contents of complaint viz. accident of truck, information qua accident to insurer and appointment of surveyor have been denied rather it has been urged that answering Ops have been impleaded as party to the complaint only to escape from and get rid of the financial liability towards them and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his contention, complainant got examined one summoned witness Sh. Deepak Grover Surveyor as CW-1 who tendered documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5  in his statement and also  counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW2/A alongwith documents as Annexures C-6 to C-24  and closed the evidence  on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Suresh K. Bishnoi, authorized signatory of Ops No.1 & 2 as Annexure RX  and closed their evidence. Counsel for Ops No.3 & 4 closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.3 & 4 without tendering any affidavit & documents etc..

4.                     We have heard learned counsels of both the parties & have gone through the records of case very carefully. Counsel for the complainant has argued that  the vehicle in question met with an accident on 28.05.2009 while it was insured with the Ops No.1 & 2 but inspite of submitting claim with the Ops, they did not bother to release the claim amount of Rs.1,97,138/- which complainant incurred on repair of the accidental truck which is a clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops No. 1 & 2 has argued that  complainant never gave any intimation to them regarding the alleged accident and loss occurred to the vehicle. So, complainant was not entitled for any claim from them. Whereas counsel of Ops No.3 & 4 has argued that they are financer of the vehicle in question and they have no concern with regard to the Insurance Claim of the vehicle in question. Besides it, Op’s counsel  have also argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the  dispute since  the policy in question was issued by Calcutta Branch of OP insurance company and not by Ambala Branch and also placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 titled as Sonic Surgical Vs.National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2010(1) Consumer Law Today page 252 wherein it has been held that “cause of action to file the consumer complaint arises within the jurisdiction of that Forum where the office of policy issuing branch of Insurance Company is situated.”

5.                     After hearing both the parties & perusing the record placed on file, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove his contention since no any document has been placed on file wherefrom it is proved that the complainant has informed the Ops No.1 & 2 i.e. insurance company regarding the alleged accident of the truck in question on 28.05.2009 except the legal notice dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure C-10)  issued to Ops after one year of the accident though the same was mandatory to be informed in writing immediately after the accident so that IRDA Surveyor may be appointed by Insurance Company for spot survey & assessing the loss caused to insured vehicle and thus the complainant himself has violated the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. Further, the evidence of  summoned witness Sh. Deepak Grover, Surveyor (alleged to be appointed by Ops No.1 & 2 Insurance Company through OP No.3) produced by complainant does not support the version of complainant as he has deposed  before the Forum on  11.06.2012 in examination-in-chief that “he is on the panel of Reliance Insurance Co. ltd. as a surveyor and   the spot survey of vehicle no.HR37D-0417 was done by him on 03.06.2009 at the call of Magma Finance,Karnal whereas in cross examination by counsel for Ops No.1 & 2, he specifically stated that  he was instructed for spot survey of the vehicle bearing regn. No.HR37D/0417 by Magma Finance, Karnal and in the survey so conducted  by him, there was no concern of Reliance General Insurance Co. and after inspection, he submitted report to Magma Finance Co. and complainant gave him fee for the survey. He further admitted in his cross examination that no claim can be settled on the report of spot survey rather it is finalized by insurance company on the basis of ‘final survey’ to be conducted  after intimation by the insured/complainant.  He further submitted that he only conducted spot survey of the vehicle and not assessed the loss which is essential  for submitting the final report to the Insurance Company”.

                          So, from the above statement of Sh. Deepak Grover, Surveyor, it is clear that he was appointed as Surveyor by Ops No.3 & 4 - financer of the truck and not by the Ops No.1 & 2 i.e. Insurance Company and he conducted spot survey only and not assessed the loss as alleged and submitted report thereof to the Ops No.3 & 4. Besides it, complainant has nowhere mentioned in his pleadings as well as in legal notice issued to the Ops that he ever submitted any claim with the OP insurance company on any specific date or vide diary number etc., whereas whatever  efforts the complainant has made, were with the Ops No.3 & 4 and by mere saying that OP insurance company is  deficient & negligent in  releasing his claim is irrelevant unless the submission of claim  to Insurance Company by completing  all the formalities is proved by the complainant. Further as per law ‘Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC’ (supra), this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction since the policy of the vehicle in question was undisputedly issued by Calcutta Branch of OP insurance company.

                        In view of the above discussed facts, we are of the view that Ops are neither negligent nor deficient as alleged rather complainant himself is negligent in not providing proper information & lodging of claim with the insurance company. As such, complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

            

Announced:31.03.2016                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                PRESIDENT     

           

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                               MEMBER