BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 313 of 2015
Date of Institution: 15.05.2015
Date of Decision: 09.06.2016
Mr.Sukhdev Singh son of Sh.Megha Singh, resident of H.No. 113, Abadi Partap Avenue, Sultanwind, Amritsar, age 48 years.
Complainant
Versus
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. 1-2, Deep Complex, Opposite Doaba Automobiles, Court Road, Amritsar, service through Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 2, 2nd Floor, PUDA Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: Sh. P.N.Khanna, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Sukhdev Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant got insurance for his vehicle TATA 407 bearing registration No.PB 02AG 9785 from Opposite Party covering the risk period from 27.3.2014 to 26.3.2015. Said vehicle was to be used by the complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, copy of cover note is annexed. The complainant is a ‘consumer’ as described under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Said vehicle unfortunately met with an accident on 1.1.2015 late night while coming from Jalandhar and the Opposite Party was immediately intimated next day morning on 2.1.2015 and the vehicle was towed to the service station M.V.Motor Garage, Amritsar and the Opposite Party appointed its surveyor who surveyed the said vehicle. Said service station made the preliminary estimate of the repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,70,100/-. It is pertinent to mention over here that the IDV of the said vehicle is Rs.2,60,576/-. The complainant made several futile visits to the Opposite Party to settle the genuine claim, but the Opposite Party instead of settling the claim of the complainant issued the letter dated 23.1.2015 seeking certain particulars which the complainant immediately complied with, but the Opposite Party again issued letter dated 26.2.2015 seeking same particulars and the complainant informed them in their office that he has already supplied the particulars required and necessary ones, but the Opposite Party instead of settling the genuine claim of the complainant repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 14.3.2015 on the frivolous grounds that the said particulars are not supplied to them. The complainant has sought the following reliefs from the Opposite Party vide instant complaint.
a) Opposite Party be directed to pay the claim of Rs.1,70,100/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 2.1.2015 till realization.
b) Opposite Party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
c) Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts intentionally while filing the present complaint. In this regard, it is submitted that in fact when the alleged loss was reported by the complainant regarding damage caused to the insured vehicle, the Opposite Party appointed independent surveyor to quantify the loss so that there should not be any dispute regarding quantum of loss if the same is found payable in the light of papers to be submitted by the insured. Said independent surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.80,580/-. However, in his report, said surveyor has stated that documents demanded by him from the insured were not supplied including certificate regarding injuries which may have been suffered by the person who was driving the said vehicle. Moreover, the said report was submitted subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions and compliance which is required to be made on the part of the insured. As the complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Opposite Party, therefore, even the loss assessed by the independent surveyor is also not payable. In order to consider the claim on merits as per terms and conditions of the Motor Policy, the complainant for the first time, was informed by the Opposite Party to submit the following documents vide their letter dated 23.1.2015:-
a) Reason for spot not done (Clarification in writing)
b) Original RC for verification.
c) Route Permit in original for verification.
d) Claim form and discharge voucher duly signed by the complainant.
e) Driving Licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident.
f) Load Challan if the vehicle was loaded at the relevant time.
g) Statement of Loan A/C
h) Repairing bills or estimate.
i) Certified copy of FIR
j) Injury Details which may have been suffered by the person who was driving the vehicle.
k) Running record of toll tax receipts.
l) News paper cutting.
m) Cancelled cheque by the complainant and self attested copy of the bank account passbook.
In this letter, it was made clear that the said documents/ clarification should be supplied within 7 days failing which it will be considered that the insured is no more interested in his claim. Although the complainant did not give any reply to this letter dated 23.1.2015, yet the Opposite Party wrote another letter dated 16.2.2015 calling upon the same documents giving again period of seven days. However, this letter/ reminder was also not replied; that thereafter finally vide letter dated 5.3.2015 again detail of same documents and also giving reference of earlier letters dated 23.1.2015 and 16.2.2015 was sent to the complainant requesting that they have not received any reply from the complainant, therefore they expect the reply of complainant within four days of the receipt of letter otherwise, they presume that the complainant is not interested in his claim. Even no compliance of this last letter was made by the complainant and as such finally closure letter dated 14.3.2015 was written giving details of all the documents with rider that inspite of three letters written to the complainant, he has not given any reply nor supplied any documents, so it is presumed that the complainant is no more interested in pursuing his claim and as such with this letter, the claim was closed as ‘no claim’. On merits, the facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied. It is stated that the complainant himself was guilty of non compliance of the supply of the documents asked from him vide several letters and therefore, the claim has filed as no claim ultimately on 14.3.2015. The complaint has no force and the same may be dismissed accordingly.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of policy schedule Ex.C2, copy of estimate Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C5, copy of driving licence Ex.C6 and another documents Ex.C7 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Mr.Jogesh Kumar, Legal Officer Ex.OP1, affidavit of Avinash Chander Vyas, surveyor and loss assessor Ex.OP2, surveyor report Ex.OP3, letter dated 23.1.2015 Ex.OP4, postal receipt Ex.OP5, letter dated 26.2.2015 Ex.OP6, postal receipt Ex.OP7, reminder dated 5.3.2015 Ex.OP8, postal receipt Ex.OP9, final reminder dated 14.3.2015 Ex.OP10, postal receipt Ex.OP11, certified copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. During the course of arguments, it transpires that Opposite Party wrote letters dated 23.1.2015, 16.2.2015 and 5.3.2015 calling upon the complainant to supply the documents detailed in letter dated 23.1.2015 for settling the claim, copies of letters are Ex.OP4, Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP8 on the record of file. Since no record was supplied by the complainant to the Opposite Party for settling the claim, the Opposite Party was left with no option, but to file the claim as ‘closed’. As such, the complaint is proved to be pre-mature. The complainant is directed to supply all the documents detailed in letter dated 23.1.2015, within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order to the Opposite Party, which will decide the claim of the complainant within further period of one month. Therefore, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 09.06.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
