Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/441

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Kumar Adv.

06 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 441 dated 13.09.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 06.05.2022. 

 

Amit Kumar son of Sh. Gauri Shanker, R/o. H. No.130-B, St. No.13, Dev Nagar, Dhandra, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Siltapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Manager/Authorized Person/Concern Officer Contact No.014102770692, 2770693.
2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., # Office 3^rd Floor, Jandu Tower, Miller Ganj, Grand Trunk Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized person/Concern Officer (M.74120-78330, 74120-78331, 74120-78332)
3. Shahdeen Ansari, Authorized Representative M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., # Office 3^rd Floor, Jandu Tower, Miller Ganj, Grand Trunk Road, Ludhiana (M:- 99141-63585)                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. K.M. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Renault Kwid Car bearing No.PB-65-AG-3618. The said was got insured from OP2 through OP3 vide policy No.105029/31/20/000113 from 02.04.2019 to 02.04.2020. On 30.06.2019, the complainant went to Moga for some work and on the way, one I20 car bearing registration No.PB-10-DX-9139 hit the car of the complainant from the back side. As a result the backside of the car of the complainant got damaged. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station at Jagraon. The complainant contacted the authorized representative of OP2. The complainant also took photographs of the damaged car and sent to OP3 but OP3 did not come for the inspection of the car. Thereafter, OP3 sent the car for repair from their service centre situated at Ludhiana near Dhandari. On 01.07.2019, on advice of OP2 and OP3, the complainant left the car at the said service centre. Thereafter, OP2 and OP3 requested the complainant to provide estimate of repair charges of the car. The car has been lying at service centre for the last two months but the OPs have neither paid the repair charges to the service centre nor the OPs have asked the service centre to repair the car. A notice dated 21.08.2019 served upon the OPs has failed to evoke a positive response. This amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,05,877/- paid by the complainant on account of repair of the car and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice none turned up on behalf of OP3 despite service and OP3 was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, as per the survey report, the claim was not payable as no permit was available while as per RC of the vehicle, it was a transport vehicle. The complainant was requested to submit the documents as per the term of the policy and IRDA rules but the complainant failed to produce the documents. Therefore, the complainant himself is at fault. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In this case, the complainant has not been appearing since 17.06.2021 nor any evidence or documents have been formally tendered on behalf of the complainant.

5.                We have heard the counsel for OP1 and OP2 and have gone through the record carefully and we proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                As per the letter dated 28.07.2019, the claim has been denied on account of the fact that there has been breach of policy terms and conditions by the complainant as at the time of the accident, the complainant was not having the permit. It is further mentioned in the letter dated 28.07.2019 that the complainant also did not supply certain documents mentioned therein. It is also mentioned in the letter dated 28.07.2019 that the claim cannot be considered in the absence of the aforesaid documents. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the complainant is directed to furnish the permit and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.07.2019 (Ex. C13) and on receipt of the said documents, OP1 and OP2 shall consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.

7.                As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the complainant furnish the permit and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.07.2019 (Ex. C13) with the OP1 and OP2 within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further on receipt of the said documents, OP1 and OP2 shall consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy within one month from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, the complaint as against OP3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Amit Kumar Vs Shriram General Insurance                              CC/19/441

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. K.M. Sethi, Advocate for the OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

                  

                   None turned up for the complainant today. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 17.06.2021.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for OP1 and OP2 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the complainant furnish the permit and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.07.2019 (Ex. C13) with the OP1 and OP2 within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further on receipt of the said documents, OP1 and OP2 shall consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy within one month from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, the complaint as against OP3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.05.2022.

Gobind Ram.