DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No. 196/2014.
Date of institution: 9.9.2014.
Date of decision: 13.4.2015.
Jagmohan Singh @ Mohan Singh son of Hari Singh; resident of Gursewak Nagar, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through General Manager.
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sangrur Branch Office SCF 46, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market, Opposite Magnam Palace, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager/Area Manager.
...Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: -
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. H.S. Ranu, Advocate.
For the opposite parties : Sh. Rajinder Goel, Advocate.
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Jagmohan Singh @ Mohan Singh complainant (herein referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to O.Ps for short), on the ground that, CC is the owner of one Swift Car bearing registration No. PB-56-A-0083, which was insured by O.P-2 vide policy No. 1003/31/14/612266 and this cover note was issued on 27.12.2013 and the policy was valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 till midnight. It is alleged that, the policy was issued by O.P-1 through O.P-2. It is further alleged that, CC also obtained a loan from O.Ps and H.P.A is also entered in RC, on the name of O.Ps.
It is further alleged that, the Car of the CC bearing registration No. PB-56-A-0083 met with an accident on 6.1.2014, in the area of Barnala, near Kapil Palace Barnala and was totally damaged. The matter was reported to Police and DDR No. 09 dated 7.1.2014, was registered in P.S City, Barnala and the intimation regarding accident was given to O.P-2, by the CC.
It is further alleged that, the accidental vehicle was handed over to Goyal Motors Dhanaula Road, Barnala, as per the direction of O.P-2. It is alleged that, the surveyor of the O.Ps visited the Goyal Motors Dhanaula Road, Barnala, and on his direction, the estimate was prepared without opening the vehicle and the total estimate cost was Rs. 4,91,430/-. It is alleged that, after few days surveyor of the O.Ps met with CC and told him that, the vehicle is 'beyond repair' and he is going to submit the report on total loss basis and assured him that, his payable amount will be released shortly. CC submitted all the documents alongwith claim form in the office of O.Ps, as demanded by the surveyor from the CC.
It is further alleged that, CC visited the office of O.P-2 and requested him to give the details of payable amount, but the O.P-2 refused to give any details about settlement of claim. On this, CC sent a request letter under RTI Act, through an Advocate on 6.5.2014, to the O.Ps to give the copy of report, submitted by the surveyor, but no reply was ever given by the O.Ps. Thereafter, CC served a legal notice dated 17.7.2014, upon the O.Ps to decide the claim of the CC and also give the copy of report of surveyor, but O.Ps failed to do so.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the O.Ps.
(a) O.Ps be directed to settle the claim and release the payable amount as mentioned in the insurance policy alongwith interest.
(b) O.Ps further be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is duly signed, verified and also supported by a detailed affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, O.P-1 has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, CC has got no cause of action or locus-standi to file the present complaint. Further, complaint is false and frivolous and is also challenged on the point of maintainability.
On merits, it is admitted that, Swift Car bearing registration No. PB-56-A/0083 was insured with the O.P-1 vide insurance policy No. 10003/31/14/612266, which was valid from 27/12/2013 to 26.12.2014, in the name of Mohan Singh (@ Jagmohan Singh), subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
It is further averred that, CC never gave any intimation, regarding the accident of his Car bearing registration No. PB-56-A-0083 to the O.P-1, otherwise the O.P-1 would have immediately appointed a surveyor and investigator, to investigate and assess the alleged loss of the Car on spot basis. It is averred that, O.P lost the valuable right of spot survey, as such CC has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is specifically submitted that, there is no branch office of the Shriram General Insurance Company Limited at Sangrur, as alleged in the complaint.
It is further averred that, O.P-1 did not receive any application dated 6.5.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as alleged in the complaint. Further, the O.P-1 did not receive any legal notice from the CC, as alleged in the complaint. It is averred that, CC has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the O.P-1, as he himself failed to intimate the O.P-1 regarding the alleged accident. All other allegations of the CC are denied.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, O.P-1 has prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Version of the O.P-1 is duly signed and verified.
It is important to mention here that, on 3.11.2014 Advocate for O.Ps stated at bar that, O.P-2 does not want to file any version.
3. The CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to C-12, which included his own affidavit, copy of insurance policy, copy of RC, copy of DDR dated 7.1.2014, copy of acknowledgment, copy of letter, copy of acknowledgment, copy of notice, copy of esitmate of Goyal Motors dated 9.1.2014, copy of estimate of Pamma Motor Garage dated 9.1.2014, copy of letter dated 13.8.2014 and copy of affidavit dated 7.7.2014 and has has closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand Advocate for O.Ps in support of their version has tendered into evidence Ex.O.P1 to Ex.O.P3, which included an affidavit of Manoj Kumar Banavari Legal Manager, copy of certificate of policy schedule, copy of Car package policy and has closed his evidence.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, version filed by the OP-1 and evidence of parties and also heard Counsel for the parties at length.
6. We have gone through the evidence of CC, wherein, he has tendered into evidence copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2, which proves that, the Car was insured with the OPs and was valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014. Further, CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence copy of DDR dated 7.1.2014 of P.S. City, Barnala Ex.C-4, which proves that, the Car of the CC met with an accident on 6.1.2014. Further, in support of his claim CC has tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 6.5.2014 Ex.C-6, wherein, he sought the information regarding the status of his claim, from the O.Ps. CC also tendered copy of legal notice Ex.C-8, which proves that, CC already issued a legal notice to the OPs, for not settling his claim, which was sent through registered cover on 18.7.2014. Further, CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence copy of letter dated 13.8.2014 of Capital Risk Management Co. Ex.C-11, wherein, one Mr. Rajiv Kumar demanded some documents from CC, which are as under:-
The name and address of dealer with contact number from whom you have purchased the said car.
Please arrange to provide the previous policy of the said vehicle.
Please provide the copy of sale agreement for the said car.
Please provide the copy of job card from Pamma Motor Garage, Barnala.
Please provide the address and contact number of Sh. Ramesh Chander s/o Sh. Ramji Dass.
The letter Ex.C-11 shows that, one Mr. Rajiv Kumar has demanded these documents from the CC on behalf of OPs, to investigate and assess the loss of the Car. CC further tendered in his evidence Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, which are copies of the estimate of loss.
On the other hand, in order to rebut the claim of the CC, O.Ps tendered into evidence an affidavit of Manoj Kumar Banavari, Legal Manager of O.P-1 Ex.O.P-1, which is nothing but word to word repetition of the version filed by the O.P-1.
It is an admitted fact that, Swift Car bearing registration No. PB-56-A/0083 was insured with the O.Ps vide insurance policy No. 10003/31/14/612266, which was valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014. It is also proved on the file from the copy of the DDR Ex.C-4 that, the car of the CC met with an accident on 6.1.2014, which is within the validity of the insurance policy, so issued by the OPs. It is further proved on the file from Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 that, CC to know the status of his claim has applied for the information under RTI Act, from the OPs. It is also clearly proved from Ex.C-11 that, Mr. Rajiv Kumar of Capital Risk Management Co., Ludhiana, demanded some documents from the CC, to settle his claim. Even, in this letter the claim number of CC is mentioned as 1000/31/14//C/044544 for Maruti Swift Car bearing No. PB-56-A-0083. In this way, this document clearly proved that, CC already applied for the claim of insurance and only then his claim bears a number. Further, the documents which are mentioned in this letter Ex.C-11 are only demanded, when the insurance company appointed a surveyor to settle the claim. Further, this company has no interest in these documents, if the insurance company not appointed it as a surveyor to investigate and assess the loss. As such, we totally disagree with the version of the O.Ps that, the CC never gave any intimation to them regarding the accident of his Car and they did not appoint any surveyor or investigator to assess or investigate the loss of the Car. Even, the O.Ps have failed to bring on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in support of their version.
We have gone through the evidence submitted by the parties and are of the opinion that, if a direction is given to the O.Ps to settle the claim of the CC, will suffice the purpose of the CC.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is clear cut 'deficiency in service' on the part of OPs. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against the OPs and order the OPs to settle the claim of the CC within 30 days as per law, from the date of the receipt of copy of the order. We further order the OPs jointly and severally to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to the CC, for causing physical and mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation. However, the CC is at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if he is not satisfied with the amount of claim.
This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
13th Day of April 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
