Haryana

Karnal

608/2012

Tarvinder Singh S/o Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Kashyap

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.608 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.: 18.12.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 21.10.2016

 

Tarvinder Singh son of Shri Balwant Singh resident of Dalbir Nagar, Kutani Road, Panipat.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 410, 1^st Floor, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, through its Manager.

2. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, EPIP, Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, through its Manager.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties

.

                      Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Kamal Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vineet Rathore Adv. for the Opposite parties.

 ORDER:

 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his vehicle TATA ACE bearing no.HR-67-7618 with opposite party no.1, vide cover note no.335917 valid from 4.11.2011 to 3.11.2012. On 23.11.2011 the said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Police Station Kairana (UP) and First Information Report No.412/11 was registered regarding the said accident. In the said accident, the vehicle was totally damaged and his brother Balvinder, who was driving the vehicle, sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. On account of death of his brother he suffered shock. He gave intimation of the accident to the office of the opposite party no.1. After sometime, he brought the vehicle from the site of accident with the help of tractor to M/s Sagar Motors, Jyoti Colony, Panipat for repairs and accordingly information of the same was given to opposite party no.1 through its agent Kamal. Mr. Arvind Kumar was appointed as Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle while lying in the repair agency, filled the claim form in presence of agent Kamal and obtained his signatures on the said form. He purchased new parts/accessories from M/s Shiv Trading Company vide invoices no.1514 to 1516 dated 28.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.80,888/- and paid Rs.37,350/- to M/s Sagar Motors for repairs. Thereafter, he gave information to the surveyor to inspect the vehicle again. Accordingly, the surveyor visited the premises of repairing agency and inspected the vehicle and obtained the bills. Thereafter, he approached opposite party no.1 to enquire about the status of his claim, but did not get satisfactory information. He sent registered letters dated 3.8.2012 and 10.09.2012 to the opposite parties, but no action was taken by the opposite parties. Ultimately, he got served legal notice dated 23.11.2012, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental and physical pain apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complaint is false and frivolous and the same amounts to  gross abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite parties were ready to settle the claim in terms of the surveyor report dated 31.05.2012 at the earliest. However, the complainant failed to provide material and mandatory documents despite repeated requests, vide letters dated 05.01.2012, 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012. Therefore, the claim was not processed and the claim amount was not paid to him. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It has further been pleaded that formal written notice or letter of accident of vehicle was served upon the opposite parties for the first time on 23.12.2011, after 30 days of the alleged accident, in violation of the policy terms and conditions due to which spot survey could not be conducted. The complainant suppressed the cause of accident and the incident of accident was not supported by any authentic document, which could be relied upon. The complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C25 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Vishal Gupta  Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/S have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant got insured his vehicle TATA ACE bearing no.HR-67-7618 with opposite party no.1 for the period of 4.11.2011 to 3.11.2012. and the same met with an accident on 23.11.2011 during subsistence of the policy and in the said accident the vehicle was damaged and brother of complainant namely  Balvinder, who was driving the vehicle, died. The copies of the First Information Report and the inquest report are Ex.C23 to Ex.C25. The complainant has alleged that he got repaired his vehicle from M/s Sagar Motors Panipat and spent an amount of Rs.1,18,220/-. It has further been alleged that he lodged claim with the opposite parties, but his claim was not paid despite letters and registered legal notice.

 7.               The opposite parties have not disputed the factum of accident and the same also stands proved from the documents Ex.C23 to Ex.C25. It has been admitted by the opposite parties that surveyor was appointed to inspect the damaged vehicle of the complainant and the loss was assessed. The copies of the reports of the surveyor are Ex.OP1/C and OP1/J, according to which loss on net of salvage basis was assessed Rs.1,25,000/-. As per the case of the opposite parties, the complainant did not submit the required documents despite letters dated 05.01.2012, 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012, therefore, the claim was not processed and the claim amount could not be paid to the complainant.

7.                Copies of the letters dated 05.01.2012, 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012 have been produced by the opposite parties as Ex.OP1/P to Ex.OP1/R respectively. These letters indicate that the opposite parties sought some information and asked the complainant to submit some documents mentioned in the said letters. The letters were sent by the opposite parties through post as is evident from the copies of the receipts of the speed post affixed on these letters. The letters were addressed to the complainant. Therefore, there is presumption that the said letters were duly delivered to the complainant. There is no evidence of the complainant worth the name on record which may show that he had furnished the required information and submitted documents to the opposite parties, as mentioned in the aforesaid letters. The complainant has only produced the copies of the letters sent by him Ex.C9 and Ex.C16 and the copy of the registered legal notice Ex.C18, but there is no reference in the said letters that compliance of the letters of the opposite parties regarding furnishing some information and submitted documents was made by the complainant. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the opposite parties so far and on account of not furnishing the required information and the documents the matter is still pending with the opposite parties. Therefore, no cause of action occurred to the complainant to file the present complaint and as such the complaint is premature.

8.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is premature. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to submit the relevant documents as mentioned by the opposite parties in the letters dated 05.01.2012, 18.01.2012 and 02.02.2012, the copy of which are as Ex.OP1/P to Ex.OP1/R and we further direct that the opposite parties would decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days of submission of the said documents by the complainant. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 21.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member