Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/355/2013

Gurdeep Singh Rakhra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager( Claims), Reliance General Insurance Col Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 355 of 2013

                                                                        Date of institution: 06.05.2013/14.05.2013

                                                                        Date of decision: 01.08.2017.

 

    Gurdeep Singh Rakhra S/o Shri Narinder Singh, aged about 67 years, resident of House No.55, Ward No.7, SAS Colony, Paonta Sahib (HP)

                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Manager (Claims) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.145-146, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh.

 

2. The Manager (Claims) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.135-136, Sector-9-C, Chandigarh.

 

3. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Sector-17, Urban Estate, Jagadhri.

 

                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

           BEFORE:          SH. DHARAM PAL …………..……….. PRESIDENT.

                                    SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                                    SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER

 

 

Present:           None for complainant.

                       Shri Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER            (DHARAM PAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant Gurdeep Singh Rakhra has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against respondents (herein after Respondents will be referred as OPs)  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is registered owner of Car No.HP-17-A-7598, Model 2008, which was insured with OPs vide Insurance Cover Note No.108000830032 as a private car for a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- for the period from 13.01.2009 to 12.01.2010. Car No.HP-17-A-7598. While it was driven by Sangeet Singh son of Shri Roshan Lal, met with an accident on 06.04.2009 near Sant Nishachal Singh School, Yamuna Nagar at about 10.00 pm and FIR No.216 dated 07.04.2009 was registered on the statement of the driver Sangeet Singh son of Shri Roshan Lal (which was wrongly typed by the concerned police officials as Sandeep Singh son of Roshan Lal instead of Sangeet Singh son of Shri Roshan Lal in FIR). The complainant gave due intimation to the OP Company and requested to depute the surveyor for assessment of loss. On the instruction of the Insurance Company, Surveyor Shri ML Garg inspected the damaged car and it was found by the surveyor that there is a total loss of the insured vehicle. At the time of submission of claim form and documents, the complainant submitted to the insurance Company the driving license of Sangeet Singh son of Shri Roshan Lal, copy of registration Certificate of Car No.HP-17-A-7598, copy of insurance, copy of FIR and Shri ML Garg also obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank printed performas for the purpose of payment of claim amount to the complainant. Beside this one affidavit dated 01.05.2009 attested by Notary Public Shri Devi Chand, Advocate (Notary) was submitted to the OP company by the complainant in which it was specifically mentioned that the name of driver Sangeet Singh of Son of Shri Roshan Lal in the FIR has been wrongly typed as Sandeep Singh. Thereafter a letter dated 29.09.2009 was received by the complainant from the office of Insurance Company in which the company had demanded copy of FIR which was again sent to the company by the complainant through his letter dated 15.10.2009. Thereafter the complainant sent a reminder dated 24.10.2009 to the OP company and requested to make the payment but thereafter the complainant again received a letter from the OP company vide which the OP company asked the complainant to submit the copy of Driving License of Sandeep Singh, on this the complainant vide his letter dated 12.11.2009 informed the insurance company that the name of driver was not Sandeep Singh but was Sangeet Singh as earlier told and an affidavit to this effect also given to corroborate the same. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of the OP company and requested to make the payment to the complainant but the OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and thereafter the complainant sent many letters dated 08.01.2010, 15.06.2010, 19.02.2011, 15.06.2011 and 17.08.2011 to the OPs and requested them to make the payment of the claim to the complainant but they neither replied the said letter nor made the payment to the complainant. The complainant moved an application in the Court of Shri Vimal Sapra, CJM Jagadhri and the Ld. Court vide its order dated 14.10.2011 specifically found that the name of the complainant in this case is Sangeet Singh and not Sandeep Singh and it was held by the Court that the error being a clerical one and the same was ordered to be corrected and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of insured amount, mental agony, harassment charges and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and on merit it is stated that as per FIR driver of the vehicle was Sandeep Singh and not Sangeet Singh as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not submitted any documents that name of driver were wrongly typed as Sandeep Singh in the FIR. It is to submit here that Surveyor has assessed the loss on cash loss basis to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- only. No document has been received by the OP Company.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-1, photocopy of proposal form as Annexure C-2, photocopy of Challan Rule 16(1) as Annexure C-3(wrongly written as C-4), photocopy of FIR bearing No.216 dated 07.04.2009 as Annexure C-5, photocopy of affidavit as Annexure C-6, photocopy of order passed by Shri Vimal Sapra, CJM Jagadhri vide order dated 14.10.2011 as Annexure C-7, letter to Gurdeep Singh Rakhra dated 29.09.2009 and 03.11.2009 as Annexure C-8 and C-9 respectively, letters to the Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd as Annexure C-10 to C -14 respectively, photocopy of legal notice dated 22.05.2012 as Annexure C-15, photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla, Manager Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company, Chandigarh as Annexure R-A and affidavit of Shri ML Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure R-B, photocopy of motor claim form as Annexure R-1, photocopy of FIR bearing No.216, dated 07.04.2009, photocopy of private and Confidential Motor (Final) Survey Report as Annexure R-3, photocopy of Challan Rule 16(1) as Annexure R-4, letters to Gurdeep Singh Rakhra dated 16.09.2009, 29.09.2009 and 03.11.2009 as Annexure R-5 to R-7, photocopy of Registration Certificate as Annexure R-8, photocopy of Insurance Policy as Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

5.                     The complainant is not appearing for the last 2 hearing. However, we have no option except to decide the present complaint on the basis of documents/evidence available in the case file. We have heard the learned counsel for Opposite party and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     Admittedly that the vehicle No.HP-17-A-7598, Model 2008, was insured with the OPs for a sum of Rs.3,08,000/- for the period from 13.01.2009 to 12.01.2010. The car in question met with an accident on 06.04.2009, the complainant lodged an FIR No.216 dated 07.04.2009. Shri ML Garg, Surveyor was appointed who assess the loss to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted the claim along with all the necessary documents, however on asking of the OPs the complainant has also supplied the required documents as desired by the OPs. From the documents placed on file it reveals that the claim of the complainant is still pending with the OPs and the same has not been decided till date.

7.                     The question is decided by this Forum, whether the Opposite Party insurer committed any deficiency in service? From the above it is clear that the complainant had submitted the required documents as desired by the OPs but the claim of the complainant has not been decided till date, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                     Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in deciding the claim itself amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurer (OPs). The complaint of the complainant is hereby disposed of with the following directions: -

(i)         The OPs are directed to decide the claim of the complainant within a period             of

            30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

(ii)        The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, harassment      and mental agony within a period of 30 days; failing which the complainant is      entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order.

                        Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 01.08.2017.

 

                                                                                    (DHARAM PAL)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                    DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

 

             (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)               (S.C.SHARMA)

              MEMBER                                               MEMBER

 

Note:   Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                                                    (DHARAM PAL)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                                    DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR