DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 352 of 7.9.2016
Decided on: 13.4.2018
Amrik Singh s/o Sh. Faqir Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Jattan Patti, Samana, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., 5-C/1, Sheetal Complex, Ground Floor, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rakesh Malhotra,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Amrik Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.)
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant being the registered owner of vehicle make Tata LPT Tralla, bearing registration No.PB-11-AU-9877, having engine No.63131982 and chassis No.09104, manufactured in the year 2011, got the same comprehensively insured with the Op vide policy No.84191448 for the period from 9.6.2013 to 8.6.2014 for the total value of Rs.18,00,000/- and paid the premium of Rs.49,846.69p. It is stated that on 17.4.2014, the said vehicle met with an accident, near Gurdaspur(Punjab).The complainant immediately informed the OP about the occurrence of accident. Sh.Deepak Gupta, surveyor was deputed for spot survey to assess the estimated loss of the vehicle. The complainant supplied all the relevant documents to the surveyor on his demand, who after getting his spot survey, asked the complainant to take the vehicle at Samana for its repair. Accordingly the complainant took the accidental vehicle to Guru Teg Bahadur Repair works, Garhi Sahib Road, Samana by engaging crane. Intimation to the effect was also given to the OP, who deputed Sh.K.P.S.Oberai, Surveyor for final survey. The complainant lodged the claim for Rs.1,80,000/-with the OP.It is stated that on the asking of Sh.K.P.S.Oberai, surveyor he sent all the documents i.e. load challan receipt, KYC documents, Pan card, ration card and cancelled cheque alongwith copy of bank pass book through e-mail to
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version, taking preliminary objections that the company has been wrongly sued as its name starts from IFFCO and not from IFFKO; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to he dismissed. It is admitted that the complainant had obtained one insurance policy No.80573559 of vehicle No.PB-11AK-2731 covering the period 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013.It is further admitted that the complainant intimated one own damage claim with regard to the damage to the vehicle on 20.2.2013, which fact can be confirmed from the facts mentioned in the claim form. It is further stated that the intimation was given by the complainant with regard to the injuries sustained to Paramjit Singh, Kala Singh, Mann Singh, Jagir Singh and Narain Singh, in the accident. It was also intimated by the complainant that Jagir Singh s/o Surinder Singh was driving the vehicle but failed to provide the driving licence of said Sh.Jagir Singh on the asking of the surveyor Sh.K.S.Singhi, vide letter dated 17.10.2013. As per the copy of the claim the name of the driver is Amrik Singh. There is clear violation of driving clause of the policy terms and conditions. The claim was repudiated and necessary information was given to the complainant.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. couns el for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Ranjan,Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP8 and closed evidence of the OP.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OP for the period from 9.6.2013 to 8.6.2014, having IDV of Rs.18,00,000/- as is evident from the policy document Ex.C1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 17.4.2014 i.e.during the subsistence of the policy. Accordingly the complainant lodged the claim with the OP but it repudiated his claim letter dated 2.4.2015, Ex.OP8/Ex.C2.
7. The OP has alleged that the complainant had not provided the load challan, KYC documents and cancelled cheque, as a result whereof the claim was rejected vide letter dated 2.4.2015. Whereas the stand of the complainant is that the requisite documents had been supplied to the OP. To corroborate this he has placed on record the copy of e-mail dated 16.3.2015,Ex.C3. From the perusal of the said e-mail, it is evident that the complainant had sent some attachments alongwith it. He has also placed on record the copies of his ration card, crossed cheque and pan card. It may be stated here that when the complainant can place on record the copies of the documents demanded by the OP, in this Forum, then we do not find any reason as to why the complainant would not supply the said documents to the insurance company in order to get the claim amount . The OP has also alleged that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by the driver Jagir Singh, whereas from the perusal of the claim form Ex.OP2, copy of Motor spot survey dated 24.4.2014,Ex.OP3 and copy of final surveyor report dated 21.3.2015, Ex.OP4, it is apparent that Sh.Gurmukh Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident, whose driving licence has been annexed alongwith the spot survey report, Ex.OP3. To prove this fact that at the time of accident the said vehicle was driven by Jagir Singh, the OP has not placed on record any document. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, this allegation of the OP stands falsified. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the OP was not justified in repudiating the claim and is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. From the final survey report dated, 26.3.2015, Ex.OP4, it is evident that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,68,100/-. Therefore, the OP is liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.1,68,100/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.2.4.2015 till its realization;
- To pay Rs.7000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
