The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that the complainant is owner of Tata Tipper bearing Registration No. PB-08-BQ-9414, Chassis No. MAT 426031 AA 02374, Engine No. 01 H 62914642, Model 2010, fully insured by the opposite party No. 1 after receiving the premium vide Insurance Policy No. 10003/31/15/057505 dated 3.5.2014 for the period of insurance from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015. The vehicle in question was hypothecated by the opposite party No. 2. Sh. Satnam Masih son of Sh. James Masih resident of Village Nawan Pind Bahadur, Post Office Pull Tibri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur is General Power of Attorney of Lovedeep Singh son of Sh. Harinder Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Ghot Pokher, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and is entitled to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the Tata Tipper in question suffered loss due to fault in machinery, as the said Tata Tipper on 23.12.2014 turned down on road in the area of P.S. Sujanpur at about 11 A.M when after loading the sand from Crasher it was coming to Gurdaspur. The driver of the Truck reported the matter on 23.12.2014. The complainant also reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 immediately. He suffered loss around Rs.3.5 Lakh approximately. Apart from the said loss, he could not earn even a single penny for him and his family's livelihood and to fulfill daily needs and also suffered loss and he could not continuously pay monthly instalment to the opposite party No. 2 after the accident. He suffered more loss and unable to pay the instalment to the opposite party No.2 due to the opposite No. 1 who did not bother even to accept the claim case of the complainant. The act of the opposite party No. 1 of not accepting the claim application and of not deputing any Surveyor even to assess the loss and to visit the spot is illegal, null and void. It is further pleaded that now the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the amount of bills paid of repair and machinery of vehicle to him along with interest @ 24% per annum as well as amount of all pending instalments w.e.f. December 2014 onwards, which he could not pay to the opposite party No. 2 due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 of not paying the claim in time and he is also entitled to get the amount of interest on Rs. 3 Lacs borrowed by him from his relatives and friends. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Earlier the complainant had filed Consumer Complaint bearing No. 72 of 10.2.2015 and the same was got dismissed by this Forum vide its order dated 31.12.2015 by holding that “the present complaint is otherwise premature since the opposite party has not yet finally decided the insurance claim”. Thereafter, the complainant has again filed second complaint No. 100 of 1.3.2016 and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 22.7.2016. Hence, this third complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the opposite party No. 1 be directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as amount of claim along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the opposite party No. 2 may be directed not to harass him and not to ask for monthly instalment till the decision of the claim matter and not to submit security cheques to encashment and not to detain the vehicle forcibly.

2.          Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has already filed same complaint previously on the same subject matter which was decided by this Forum on 31.12.2015 and the said complaint has been disposed of by directing the complainant to approach the opposite party first and to submit the documents required for settling the insurance claim within 15 days from the receipt of order and further the insurance company to settle the claim afterwards. The complainant never approached the opposite party as per order and never submitted any documents, so the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is premature as till today no documents have been submitted by the complainant. Even otherwise, the complaint is not within limitation as the matter pertains to the year 2014 as the loss alleged to be occurred on 23.12.2014. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Even otherwise, there is no liability of the insurance company as the OD part of the policy has already been cancelled on 10.11.2014, so there remains no privity of contract between the parties on the alleged date of accident i.e. 23.12.2014. On merits, it is denied that Satnam Singh is attorney holder of Lovedeep Singh and competent to file the present complaint. It is further denied that the vehicle was hypothecated with Shri Ram General Insurance Company. The matter of fact is that Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.is not dealing in finance. The Shri Ram Transport Finance Company is dealing in finance and that company is different and no link with Shri Ram General Insurance Company. Further, the policy was issued but the OD part of the policy has already been cancelled on 10.11.2014. No alleged loss occurred on 23.12.2014 nor the matter was reported to the Insurance Company. The matter of fact is that no document till date has been submitted by the complainant in spite of the order passed by this Forum previously and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. No question of paying instalment to Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.arises as the company is not dealing with the finance. Other averments made in the complaint are specifically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

3.       In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Satnam Masih Ex. C-1 along with documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-50 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Vijay, Authorized Signatory – Ex. OP1,2/1 along with documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex. OP1,2/17 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.         Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is owner of Tata Tipper bearing Registration No. PB-08-BQ-9414, Chassis No. MAT 426031 AA 02374, Engine No. 01 H 62914642, Model 2010, fully insured by the opposite party No. 1 after receiving the premium vide Insurance Policy No. 10003/31/15/057505 dated 3.5.2014 for the period of insurance from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015. The vehicle in question was hypothecated by the opposite party No.2. Sh. Satnam Masih son of Sh.James Masih resident of Village Nawan Pind Bahadur, Post Office Pull Tibri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur is General Power of Attorney of Lovedeep Singh son of Sh. Harinder Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Ghot Pokher, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and is entitled to file the present complaint. He further contended that the vehicle in question suffered loss due to fault in machinery on 23.12.2014 as it turned down on road in the area of P.S. Sujanpur at about 11 A.M when after loading the sand from Crasher it was coming to Gurdaspur. The driver of the Truck reported the matter on 23.12.2014. The complainant also reported to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 immediately. He suffered loss around Rs.3.5 Lakh approximately. Apart from the said loss, he could not earn even a single penny for him and his family's livelihood and to fulfill daily needs and also suffered loss and he could not continuously pay monthly instalment to the opposite party No. 2 after the accident. The complainant suffered more loss and unable to pay the instalment to the opposite party No.2 due to the opposite No. 1 who did not bother even to accept the claim case of the complainant. The act of the opposite party No. 1 of not accepting the claim application and of not deputing any Surveyor even to assess the loss and to visit the spot is illegal, null and void and as such, the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the amount of bills paid of repair and machinery of vehicle to him along with interest @ 24% per annum as well as amount of all pending instalments w.e.f. December 2014 onwards, which he could not pay to the opposite party No. 2 due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 of not paying the claim in time and he is also entitled to get the amount of interest on Rs. 3 Lacs borrowed by him from his relatives and friends. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Earlier the complainant filed Consumer Complaint 72 of 2015 and the same was got dismissed vide this Forum's order dated 31.12.2015 by holding that “the present complaint is otherwise premature since the opposite party has not yet finally decided the insurance claim”. Thereafter, the complainant filed second complaint No. 100 of 2016 and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 22.7.2016. Hence, this third complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the opposite party No. 1 be directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as amount of claim along with interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the opposite party No. 2 may be directed not to harass him and not to ask for monthly instalment till the decision of the claim matter and not to submit security cheques to encashment and not to detail the vehicle forcibly.

7.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has already filed same complaint previously on the same subject matter which was decided by this Forum on 31.12.2015 and the said complaint has been disposed of by directing the complainant to approach the opposite party first and to submit the documents required for settling the insurance company within 15 days from the receipt of order and further the insurance company to settle the claim afterwards. The complainant never approached the opposite party as per order and never submitted any documents, so the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is premature as till today no documents have been submitted by the complainant. Even otherwise, the complaint is not within limitation as the matter pertains to the year 2014 as the alleged loss, alleged to be occurred on 23.12.2014. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Even otherwise, there is no liability of the insurance company as the OD pat of the policy has already been cancelled on 10.11.2014, so there remains no privity of contract between the parties on the alleged date of accident i.e. 23.12.2014. Further, the policy was issued but the OD part of the policy has already been cancelled on 10.11.2014. No alleged loss occurred on 23.12.2014 nor the matter was reported to the Insurance Company. The matter of fact is that no document till date has been submitted by the complainant in spite of the order passed by this Forum previously and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. No question of paying instalment to Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. arises as the Company is not dealing with the finance.

8.     We have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties and also scanned the case file.

9.        The first point raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the present complaint is not within limitation as the matter pertains to the year 2014 as the alleged loss occurred on 23.12.2014. Admittedly, earlier the complainant filed CC No. 72 of 10.2.2015 which was got dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 31.12.2015 by holding that the present complaint is otherwise premature since the opposite party has not yet finally decided the insurance claim. Thereafter, the complainant has again filed second complaint No. 100 of 01.03.2016 and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 22.7.2016. The present third complaint has been filed by the complainant in this Forum on 13.10.2017, which was admitted by this Forum vide order dated 30.10.2017. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is very well within limitation and this complaint is maintainable in this Forum.

10.        Second point raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that as a matter of fact no document till date has been submitted by the complainant in spite of the order passed by this Forum previously and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant submitted the claim within time, but the opposite party did not issue the receipt. In support of the averments made in the complaint the complainant has placed on the record affidavit Ex.C-1 along with numerous documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-50 containing bills of repair of the vehicle in dispute. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant submitted the claim within time, but the opposite party did not issue the receipt. So, we are of the considered opinion that if the complainant can place on the file the above mentioned numerous documents, then he must have supplied the required documents to the opposite party, as directed by this Forum and thereafter, filed the present complaint.

11.          Further, it is usual with the insurance companies to show green pastures to the consumers when they are to sell their policies. But, however when it comes to the payment for claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. Reliance in this connection can be had on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This 'take it or leave it' attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav & Others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to bold as under :-

“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs. 5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.” So, we are of the considered opinion that in this case, the opposite party No. 1 has not paid the genuine claim of the complainant,which amounts to deficiency in service on their part and thus, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

12.           In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as amount of claim along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum form the date of filing of the complaint till realization. This complaint could not be decided within the stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13.           Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

February 04, 2020.                         Member                       Presiding Member

 MK