DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.317 of 2018
Date of institution: 08.05.2018
Date of Decision:16.08.2021
- Ajay Yadav widowSh. Santosh Kumar Yadav aged about 25 years resident of House No.1684, Street No.06, Gobind Nagar, Mundian Kalan, Tehsil & District Ludhianan
- Ajay Kumar son of Chedi Lal aged about 35 years resident of House No.1684, Street No.6, Gobind Nagar, Mundian Kalan. B
…….Complainants
Versus
- Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Jhandu Tower, 3rd Floor, Miller Ganj, Near Manju Cinema, GT Road, Ludhiana, 141003 bearing Policy No.105029/31/17/006225 valid from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2017
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited SCO No.120, 6th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, 141001
……..Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
PRESENT:
Sh. Uma Shankar, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. Vyom Bansal, Adv. For OP1
Complaint against OP2 not admitted
ORDER
RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
- The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the husband of the complainant No.1 namely Santosh Kumar Yadav was running a Canter bearing No.PB-10-FF-6744 by way of self employment to earn his livelihood to maintain his family. The said canter was financed worth Rs.12,50,000/- from the OP2 in the presence of complainant No.2. The OP2 has disclosed that they have got the loan insured and also got the canter insured with the OP1 as such the OP1 issued the policy bearing No. 105029/31/17/006225 valid from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2017 on payment of Rs.34,683/-. In the intervening night of 20.11.2017 and 21.11.2017, the said canter was met with an accident and at that time husband of the complainant No.1 was driving the said vehicle, who died in the same and the complainant No.1 is the class I legal heir of her nominee. As per law in presence of Class I legal heir nominee is immaterial. After the accident, the investigator and other officials of opposite parties have obtained signatures of the complainant No.1 on the claim forms and also obtained requisite documents and assured to pay the balance loan amount of the OP2, get the canter repaired and also assured to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of death of owner/driver but nothing has been done by the opposite parties till date. The claim of the said vehicle was pending before the opposite parties and they have not satisfied the same till date. The complainant has been suffering a loss of Rs.50,000/- per month since the day of accident on account of damage of vehicle, which is a continue loss to the complainant No.1. Hence, this complaint, the complainant is therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and the opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to make a payment of balance loan amount to OP2. The OP1 be directed to get the canter No.PB-10-FF-6744 repaired and deliver it to the complainant No.1 free from any kind of defect. The OP No.1 be directed to make a payment of Rs.2,00,000/-to complainant No.1 on account of death of Santosh Kumar Yadav. The OP No.1 be directed to make a payment of Rs.50,000/- per month being loss of earning since the day of accident, to complainant No.1on account of damage of the vehicle. To make a payment of interest 18% from the date of accident till the entire satisfaction of the claim amounts. To make a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as harassment compensation to the complainants. To make a payment of Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.
2. In reply, the OP No.1 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is frivolous and not tenable at law; that the complainant has not made Mr. Chhedi Lal Yadav father of Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav a party to the present proceedings as he was nominee for the amount of PA cover of owner/driver and as such the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and deserves to be dismissed; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts; that the complaint in the present form is not maintainable before this Court; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant is trying to mislead this Court by twisting the true facts and for giving end to its dishonest intentions of extorting illegal money under the beneficial legislation meant for innocent consumers; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which cannot be tried and decided in the summary jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle of Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav i.e. Tata Motors LPT1109 Truck bearing registration No.PB-10-FF-6744 was insured by the answering OP. The policy schedule along with wordings are already marked as annexure R-1. The benefits under the policy are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability of the opposite party is limited to the insured perils occurring within the policy period subject to conditions and expectations as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy. The answering OP vide its letter dated 25.11.2017 requested the insured to shift the vehicle to garage for repairs and submit the estimate so that the surveyor could visit for reassessment. That not hearing any response the answering OP sent reminder letter dated 27.12.2017, 04.01.2018 calling upon the complainant to submit the requisite document for processing the claim. Ultimately not receiving any documents or response from the complainant the claim was treated as No Claim and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 17.1.2018. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OP1 also tendered certain documents in support of their version.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5. After perusing the file, we feel,
that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service against the OPs as the Ops is failed to show any documentary proof on the file regarding defaulting amount of the complainant. So, the complainant is entitled to the claim. OP No.2 is directed to issue NOC to the complainant. OPs are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. The OPs are further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
August 16, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
RBT/ CC No.163 of 2018
Present: Sh. Iqbal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. VS Mand, Adv. For OP1
Sh. Sumit Jain, Adv. for OP2
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
August,16 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
