BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.353 of 2015
Date of Instt. 20.08.2015
Date of Decision :27.04.2016
Sukhwinder Singh aged about 49 years son of Sucha Singh R/o Village Chahalpur, P.O.Dagham, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Plot No.EH-198, Civil Lines, Nirmal Complex, Swagat Palace, GT Road, Jalandhar.
2. Teh Regional Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Sohan Singh Complex, Shastri Nagar, Near Railway Crossing, Ludhiana.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Customer Service Centre-North IFFCO House, Third Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.APS Pathania Adv., counsel for OPs.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner of tractor Ace No.450 bearing registration No.PB-07-AL-4206 and the same is registered in his name and got insured the tractor with the OPs vide policy No.1-2BTL4LX for the period from 27.9.2013 to 26.9.2014. Unfortunately, on 27.7.2014 the said tractor met with an accident in the area of Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The OPs was duly informed. The complainant lodged claim with the OPs regarding the repair of the vehicle vide reference No.1-2X2BV8J alongwith all necessary documents. The OP appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle at M/s S.K.Automobiles, Banga Road, Nawanshahr and submitted his report. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.23,600/- to M/s S.K.Automobiles and all relevant documents were handed over to the surveyor but OPs sent letter dated 4.2.2015 to the complainant intimating that the claim of the complainant has been closed due to none submission of documents i.e. cancelled cheque of insured for payment through NEFT/RTGS. The complainant submitted that he never received any letter from the OP for submission of any documents. However, after receipt of letter dated 4.2.2015, he submitted the documents to the OPs vide registered letter dated 2.3.20158 but the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.23,600/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed written statement pleading that the complainant had to provide the requisite documents then genuine claim is to be seen by the insurance company. The OPs sent letter dated 18.12.2014, 30.12.2014 and 2.1.2015 but complainant did not provide the documents. So, complainant is himself negligent for not making the necessary compliance of the documents to be provided to the OPs. OPs appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report vide which he assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs.17,125/-. On 16.3.2015 the payment of claim through NEFT has been transferred in the account of the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,125/-. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/15 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his tractor Ace bearing registration No.PB-07-AL-4206 insured with the OPs vide policy No.1-2BTL4LX for the period from 27.9.2013 to 26.9.2014. On 27.7.2014 the said tractor met with an accident in the area of Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The OP was duly informed. The complainant lodged claim with the OPs regarding the repair of the vehicle vide reference No.1-2X2BV8J alongwith all necessary documents. The OP appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle at M/s S.K.Automobiles, Banga Road, Nawanshahr and submitted his report. The complainant paid Rs.23,600/- to M/s S.K.Automobiles vide bill Ex.C4 and all relevant documents were handed over to the surveyor but OPs sent letter dated 4.2.2015 Ex.C3 to the complainant intimating that the claim of the complainant has been closed due to none submission of documents i.e. cancelled cheque of insured for payment through NEFT/RTGS. The complainant submitted that he never received any letter from the OP for submission of any documents. However, after receipt of this letter dated 4.2.2015, the complainant submitted the documents to the OP vide registered letter dated 2.3.2015 Ex.C1 but the OP did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the OPs is that the complainant had to provide the requisite documents only then genuine claim is to be seen by the insurance company. The OPs sent letter dated 18.12.2014 Ex.OP5, letter dated 30.12.2014 Ex.OP4 and letter dated 2.1.2015 Ex.OP3, but complainant did not provide the documents. So, complainant is himself negligent for not making the necessary compliance regarding the submission of documents. OPs appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report Ex.OP6 vide which he assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.17,125/-. So, on 16.3.2015 the payment of claim through NEFT has been transferred in the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.17,125/-. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his tractor Ace bearing registration No.PB-07-AL-4206 insured with the OPs vide policy No.1-2BTL4LX for the period from 27.9.2013 to 26.9.2014. On 27.7.2014 the said tractor met with an accident and the OP was duly informed. The complainant got his tractor repaired from M/s S.K.Automobiles and paid Rs.23600/- vide bill Ex.C4. The complainant lodged claim with the OP regarding the repair of the vehicle. The OP appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle in question and assessed the loss and submitted his report Ex.OP6 vide which he assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.17125/-. The OP wrote letters to the complainant Ex.OP1, Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 asking the complainant that his claim has been settled and he should submit cancelled cheque for payment through NEFT and pass book copy/RTGS. The complainant vide letter dated 2.3.2015 received by OP on 10.3.2015 submitted that he did not receive the aforesaid letters allegedly written by OP. However, he sent cancelled cheque for payment through NEFT and pass book copy/RTGS to the OP on 10.3.2015. Resultantly, the OP deposited the amount of claim of the complainant settled by the OP as per surveyor report Ex.OP6 to the tune of Rs.17125/- in the account of the complainant. The complainant could not check his account and served legal notice dated 18.6.2015 Ex.C7 on the OPs stating that the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant and requested them to settle the claim of the complainant. Whereas the OP has already settled the claim of the complainant as per surveyor report and amount has already been deposited in the account of the complainant on 16.3.2015. Similarly, in the present complaint filed on 20.8.2015, the complainant has submitted that the OP has not yet settle the claim of the complainant. Whereas the claim of the complainant has already been settled by the OP and amount of claim has already been deposited in the account of the complainant on 16.3.2015.
11. The complainant has no where challenged the surveyor report Ex.OP6 nor pointed out any defect in the said surveyor report nor pointed out any object left unconsidered by the surveyor in his report. The report of the surveyor is best piece of evidence to settle the claim of the insured unless and until the said surveyor report is challenged and set-aside by the competent authority. So, OP has settled the claim of the complainant as per unchallenged report of the surveyor and has already deposited the amount of the settled claim in the account of the complainant on 16.3.2015 i.e. five months prior to the filing of the present complaint by the complainant.
12. Therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, qua the complainant. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
27.04.2016 Member Member President
