The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Harminder Singh prays for the necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.44,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till its actual realization in his favour and also to pay compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he has executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of complainant Surinder Kumar and authorized him to file the instant complaint and to do any act in the matter in hand on his behalf. He has been appointed as Power of Attorney Holder qua the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.PB-05-G-9961, Model No.2001, Engine No.10E621942690 and Chassis No.426010GVZ715732. He has purchased the aforesaid truck for earning his exclusively livelihood by way of self-employment. The said vehicle was got financed by him from opposite parties and has repaid the financed amount alongwith interest and they have issued NOC to him. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties against the Policy No.10003/31/14/256091 which is for the period with effect from 16.7.2013 to 15.7.2014. He has further pleaded that unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.5.2014. Thereafter he completed all the formalities with the opposite parties for getting insurance claim. The opposite parties have prepared cheque amounting to Rs.44,500/- for abovementioned claim but they have not disbursed the said amount in his favour so far. He has number of times approached to the opposite parties with the request to disburse the said amount in his favour but they have not admitted his legal and genuine request. A legal notice dated 4.6.2015 was also issued through his counsel but no reply has been received from the opposite parties. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties, he has suffered huge monetary loss and suffered mental and physical agony from the hands of the opposite parties. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. The matter of fact is that the claim has been filed and in the complaint, the complainant alleged that his vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle has been duly surveyed by the surveyor and as per survey report the liability of insurance co. is of Rs.44,500/-. The claim has been passed as per survey report. As per insurance policy, the vehicle was hypothecated with Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. due to which the payment has been made to the Finance Co. The complainant in the present complaint alleged that NOC has already been issued by the Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. but no such document has been provided to the Insurance Co. at that time and even no application has ever been sent to the insurance company to delete the name of finance co. from the policy documents. So, the payment has been made to the finance co. and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant Surinder Kumar in this complaint alleged that he has purchased this vehicle. The policy in the present case is in the name of Harminder Singh, as such the insurance co. has no link for privity of contract with Surinder Singh, as such he has no right to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the policy in the present case is in the name of Harminder Singh, as such the insurance co. has no link for privity of contract with Surinder Singh, as such he has no right to file the present complaint. Even further as the vehicle has already been sold as such Harminder Singh had no insurable interest in the vehicle and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.        Surinder Kumar, General Power of Attorney Holder of Harminder Singh tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. 

5.          Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajendra Sharma, authorized signatory of opposite parties Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants against the collateral side-drop of the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants while adjudicating the present complaint.

7.     We find that the accidented vehicle (on the date of accident) was registered in the name of the complainant Harminder Singh and its insurance was also purchased in his name from the OP Insurers. The complainant has been within his legal rights to have appointed Surinder Kumar as his attorney (vide Ex.C3) to act on his behalf to prosecute the present complaint and thus the objection as raised by the OP insurers is hereby set aside. We find that the OP insurers have settled (on 05.08.2014) the complainant’s insurance accident claim Ex.C7 for an amount of Rs.44,500/- whereas his Loan A/c by the time had already stood liquidated as on 04 07.2014 vide Ex.C8 (and also Ex.C9 & Ex.C10) the N.O.C. duly issued by the financer Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Gurdaspur (a sister concern of the OP insurers). It is not understood as to how and why the settled amount was not paid/disbursed to the complainant and instead was credited to the financers (who have been the insurer’s associate concern) on the plea/ pretext that the related N.O.C. was not submitted by the complainant. We find that it has been the legal right of the complainant to have access to/credit of the settled insurance claim amount and its deprivation to him surely amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP insurers who are lined up to an adverse award under the applicable statute for the exhibited deficiency in service.           

8.       In the light of the all above, we find the OP insurers to be deficient in service having employed ‘unfair trade practice’ to the detriment of the precious consumer rights of the complainant and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay/ disburse the settled amount of the related insurance claim of Rs.44,500/- to the complainant besides to pay him another  Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid. 

9.     Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

February,15 2016                                                       Member

*MK*