DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 197 of 17-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 16-12-2009 <br /> <br /> Lakhveer Singh S/o Sh. Sukhmander Singh, R/o Village Chak Bhaktu, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maruti Insurance Servicing,2nd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building No. 8, Parliament Street, New Delhi, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 3.M/s. Tara Automobiles Ltd., Near ITI Chowk, Bathinda, through its Manager/Owner/Director.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ripudaman Goyal, Advocate, counsel the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. Amanpal Singh Sekhon,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got comprehensively insured his Maruti Swift VDI car registration No. PB-03-R-5800, Model February, 2008, with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 through opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties never supplied any policy with terms and conditions to him. His said Car met with an accident on 15-04-2009 with motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-03-R-6765 in the revenue limits of PS Nahianwala when it was driven by him and in this accident, car was badly damaged and one motor-cyclist died. An FIR No. 35 dated 16-04-09 was registered at P.S. Nahianwala on the statement of Yuvraj Singh, brother of deceased person. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 deputed their surveyor Sh. Raj Pal Singhal to assess the loss and the accidental car was shifted to opposite party No. 3 for repairs. The complainant handed-over all the necessary documents to him and he obtained his signatures on 5-6 blank papers/vouchers. The opposite party No. 3 did not start repair of the vehicle and demanded payment of Rs. 81,000/- and under compelled circumstances he paid the said amount and got his car repaired. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 neither paid his claim nor issued any No claim letter. When he inquired from the surveyor about his claim, he came to know that Yuvraj Singh who got FIR registered stated that at the time of accident, he was under influence of liquor/drugs. He asserts that he was injured in the accident and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The doctors of Civil Hospital have not mentioned about consumption of liquor etc., He further asserts that vehicle was got repaired from authorised agent i.e. opposite party No. 3 and as per settled law, the surveyor cannot reduce the loss without justification. He made repeated requests to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay his claim, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay the loss amount of Rs. 81,000/- alongwith interest 18% P.A. and also pay him damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and pains alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; intricate questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence which is not possible in summary procedure under this Act; complainant has concealed material facts; he is not consumer; he has no locus standi or cause of action and complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it has been submitted that Mr. Raj Pal Singhal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss of the accidental car, who conducted survey of the vehicle on 30-04-2009 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 59,246/-. It has been pleaded that since FIR No. 35 dated 16-04-09 lodged by Yuvraj Singh categorically mentioned and proved that the complainant was in intoxicating position i.e. under the influence of liquor/drugs, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 12-08-09.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; he has not come before this Forum with clean hands; he is estopped from filing the complaint and complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it has been submitted that it is bound to provide cashless facility regarding the insured vehicle only after due sanction by the surveyor appointed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, but in this case, no such sanction has been given by the surveyor and as per rules and regulations, it charged the entire amount from the complainant regarding repair of the vehicle in question.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of certificate cum policy Ex. C-2, photocopy of R.C Ex. C-3, photocopy of FIR Ex. C-4, photocopy of driving licence Ex. C-5, photocopy of admission record Ex. C-7, photocopy of depreciation schedule Ex. C-8, photocopy of Motor claim form Ex. C-9, photocopy of estimates Ex. C-10, photocopy of survey report Ex. C-11, photocopy of photographs Ex. C-12, photocopy of letter Ex. C-13, affidavit of Yuvraj Singh Ex. C-14. Photocopy of another letter Ex. C-15, photocopy of Form A Ex. C-16, photocopy of postal receipt Ex. C-17, photocopy of guidelines Ex. C-18 and photocopy of proposal form Ex. C-19.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 produced in evidence affidavit of Sh. P K Jain, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. R-1, affidavit of Sh. Raj Pal Singhal, Surveyor Ex. R-2, photocopy of letter Ex. R-3, photocopy of postal receipt Ex. R-4, photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex. R-5, photocopy of terms and conditions Ex. R-6, photocopy of Challan Form Ex. R-7 and opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sekhon, Works Manager Ex. R-8.<br /> 6. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.<br /> 7. It is undisputed that car of the complainant was insured with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the period from 25-02-2009 to 24-02-2010 which was damaged as a result of an accident with a motor-cycle at 6.30 p.m. on 15-04-2009 near Bus Stand Bhokhra. One of the rider of the motorcycle had died in the accident. The surveyor of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had assessed the loss caused to the car in question to the tune of Rs. 59,246/- whereas the complainant claimed to have paid Rs. 81,000/- to opposite party No. 3 for its repair. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide their letter dated 12-08-2009, Ex. C-15, on the ground that while driving the car in question, the complainant was under the influence of liquor or any drug as mentioned in FIR No. 35 wherein Yuvraj Singh at whose instance it was recorded, has stated that complainant was under the influence of liquor when he was driving car in question. Vide his affidavit Ex. C-14 Yuvraj Singh had retracted from his above said statement. Best and conclusive evidence to show that anybody has consumed liquor or drugs at a specific time is his medical examination. In the present case, the admission slip to a hospital is Ex. C-7, accompanied by a medical treatment of the complainant, which does not reveals that he was under the influence of liquor or that he had consumed liquor or drugs. Therefore, even if the affidavit of Yuvraj Singh is discarded, even then, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion, in the absence of any medical report, that complainant was under the influence of any drug or liquor when he was driving the car in question. Hence, the repudiation of claim of the complainant on the ground that he was under the influence of liquor or drugs when he was driving the car in question is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 8. There is nothing on record to discard the report of the surveyor notwithstanding the fact that complainant alleges that he had spent a sum of Rs. 81,000/- for getting his car repaired. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is accepted to be correct as regards damages caused to the car in question, for its repairs.<br /> 9. In view of what has been discussed above, the complaint is accepted against opposite parties No. 1 & 2, with costs of Rs.3,000/- and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 59,246/- assessed by the surveyor, with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of repudiation i.e. 12-08-2009, till payment.<br /> The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced : <br /> 16-12-2009 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) <br /> Member