Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/564/2017

Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Singh

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/564/2017
Date of Institution	:	31/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/04/2019

 

Raghubir Singh son of Sh. Lajja Ram, Village Tarapur, P.O. Khizrabad, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

The Managing Director, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO -2464, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address

Dare House, 2^nd Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600001.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                    

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajbir Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant got his commercial vehicle i.e. Innova car bearing registration No.PB-01-B-7344 insured from the OP for the period from 14.7.2016 to midnight of 13.7.2017.  

                The case is, on 3.11.2016 the vehicle met with an accident with a Himachal Roadways bus bearing registration No.HP-72-A-7325.  In Innova, Sh. Pawan Kumar, was employed as a driver, and passenger Sh. Suresh Kumar died on the spot and the vehicle was totally damaged. The driving licence of said Sh. Pawan Kumar was in the wallet which was lost alongwith other documents.  In this regard a DDR No.12 dated 15.12.2016 was lodged at P.P. Mandawala, P.S. Pinjore, Panchkula.  All the papers were submitted to the OP i.e. the insurer and the surveyor was also appointed.  The driving licence was also got verified.  However, the OP closed the case as no claim. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for directing the OP to pay the IDV of Rs.13,37,135/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.         On notice being issued, OP filed its short reply claiming therein that the complainant had failed to submit the requisite documents despite repeated intimation sent and hence the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.12.2016. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted case, the ill-fated vehicle, of which insurance policy was taken by the complainant as a service, was insured with the OP.  Further case is, on the date of the alleged accident i.e. 3.11.2016, the said insurance policy issued by the OP was operative. These averments are not in dispute before us at all.
7.         The reasons assigned for repudiation of the claim is the complainant despite having been intimated twice did not submit the required documents, therefore, the claim was treated as no claim. While contra, the evidence led by the complainant is entire documents were submitted and even surveyor was appointed who had also got the driving licence of deceased driver, Sh. Pawan Kumar verified from the Registering and Licensing Authority, Wokha, Nagaland and the same was found to be a genuine one.  This shows, the claim was treated as closed as documents were allegedly not supplied whereas record has been brought in the form of evidence i.e. affidavit etc. that these were supplied. 
8.         The difficulty with this Forum is, we are not in a position to dispose of this consumer complaint on merits as firstly there is no evidence brought on record where the salvage of the vehicle is lying.  Secondly, the copy of the FIR or to say DDR lodged in P.P. Mandawala, P.S. Pinjore, Panchkula has not at all been brought on record by the complainant though his case is, entire documents were submitted to the OP i.e. the insurer. The complainant has also placed on record the photocopies of the certificate of registration, insurance policy, contract carriage permit, driving licence of Pawan Kumar and the document issued by Arora Associates. It nowhere says that the vehicle was totally damaged or not and what happened to the salvage of the vehicle.
9.         The OP by way of the present consumer complaint alongwith its copy has been supplied, photocopies of registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, contract carriage permit, tax penalty receipt, documents of driving licence of Sh.Pawan Kumar alongwith report of verification of DL by Arora Associates and one verification letter issued by the Govt. of Nagaland.  This shows, all the documents except for copy of FIR or say DDR are now in possession of the OP.  Therefore, a just order could be passed directing the OP to decide the claim of the complainant within the time limit to be fixed by this Forum. If the complainant could produce documents before this Forum then it is not believable why he should not supply the said documents with his claim to the insurer.  As such, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the service provider in not processing and deciding the claim of the complainant on merits and it unnecessarily put the complainant to harassment. 

 

10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under:-

1. To process the insurance claim of the complainant and decide the same on merits.  The complainant shall supply photocopy of the FIR or say DDR to the OP within a week’s time by registered post from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OP shall decide the claim on merits within a period of three months to be reckoned from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  Needless to mention here, complainant shall be at liberty to challenge the said decision of the OP, if the need so arises.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OP within three months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/04/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President