Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/172

Narinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Lt. - Opp.Party(s)

Parshotam Lal Chaudhary

01 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 172 of 2018   

Date of Institution:     26.10.2018

Date of Decision :        1.05.2019

 

Narinder Pal aged about 54 years s/o Lakh Ram @ Lekh Raj r/o Ward No. 10, Vading Mohalla, Kotkapura. Now, at present r/o Joddian Chakkian Mohalla Bazigar Wala Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

 

 

...Complainant

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd through its General Manager, Gulabi Bagh, G T Road, Moga.

.....OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh  Parshotam Lal Chaudhary, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs

cc no.-172 of 2018

seeking directions to OPs to make payment of remaining insurance claim for his stolen truck and for further directing OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that truck of complainant bearing Registration No RJ 13G-9504 was fully insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no 36110031150100006753 valid from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 Rs.5,00,000/-against all kinds of risks including theft. It is submitted that on 25.06.2015, complainant parked his truck  at petrol pump, Moga Road, Kotkapura, but next morning he did not find his truck there. He made search of his truck, but all in vain and then he got recorded an FIR no.103 dated 26.06.2016 to this effect in Police Station, City Kotkapura. Complainant duly informed OP about theft of his truck and requested them to make payment of his genuine claim. OP appointed surveyor and got conducted enquiries regarding theft of his truck and OP agreed to pay  claim of Rs.4,98,500/- and then on directions of OP, complainant transferred the RC of his truck in the name of Company and also submitted letter of subrogation, power of attorney and indemnity bond to enable them to release the claim payment. On 9.08.2018, OP transferred Rs.3,73,500/-in the account of complainant through NEFT and  then, vide letter dated 23.08.2018, complainant informed OP about inadequacy of claim amount. It is submitted that claim amount received by complainant is inadequate and he is not satisfied with  this amount as

cc no.-172 of 2018

market value of truck was more than seven lakhs but   OP assessed the value of truck at the time of issuance of policy to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and sum of Rs.4,98,000/-was agreed to be paid by them to complainant in full and final settlement of his claim, but they paid only Rs.3,73,500/-to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to OP to make payment of remaining insurance claim, but all in vain and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                               The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.10.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as he is not the consumer of answering OP. It is averred that motor vehicle documents of truck in question were not in order as National Permit of the vehicle was valid up till 15.06.2016 and occurrence of theft is dated intervening night of 25/26 June, 2016 and thus, he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is brought before the Forum that complainant vide letter dated 9.10.2017 accepted before them that National Permit of

cc no.-172 of 2018

vehicle is expired and he is ready to settle the claim on sub standard basis and agreed to accept Rs.3,73,500/-as full and final settlement of insurance claim. Complainant suffered letter of subrogation, letter of undertaking and indemnity bond duly attested by Notary Public and also submitted form no.29 and 30 required for transfer of vehicle from the name of complainant to the name of Insurance Company. Complainant also furnished affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate and now, he cannot claim any amount from them. Moreover, lengthy evidence is required, which is not possible in summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and even complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-23 and then, closed his evidence.

 

cc no.-172 of 2018

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Din Dyal Aggarwal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                Ld Counsel for complainants vehemently argued that truck of complainant bearing Registration No. RJ13G-9504 was insured with OP vide Insurance Policy bearing no 36110031150100006753 valid from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 for Rs.5,00,000/- and during the subsistence of policy, it was stolen on 25.06.2015. FIR no.103 dated 26.06.2016 to this effect was got recorded in Police Station, City Kotkapura and due intimation regarding theft was also given to OP. After investigation and enquiry through surveyor, OP agreed to pay Rs.4,98,500/- as insurance claim and then on directions of OP, complainant transferred the RC of his truck in the name of Company and also submitted requisite documents to them, but on 9.08.2018, OP transferred Rs.3,73,500/-in his account and on this, vide letter dated 23.08.2018, complainant informed OP about inadequacy of claim amount and requested them to make payment of remaining claim amount. Claim amount received by complainant is inadequate and he is not satisfied with it as market value of truck was Rs.7,00,000/- but OP

cc no.-172 of 2018

assessed the same for Rs.5,00,000/- only and sum of Rs.4,98,000/-was agreed to be paid by them in full and final settlement of his claim amount, but they paid only Rs.3,73,500/-to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                             To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that present complaint involves complex questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that National Permit of the vehicle was valid only up till 15.06.2016 and theft occurred on 25/26 June, 2016 and thus, he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Vide letter dated 9.10.2017 complainant admitted that National Permit of his vehicle is expired and he is ready to settle the claim on sub standard basis and agreed to accept Rs.3,73,500/-as full and final settlement of insurance claim. Complainant himself submitted them letter of subrogation, letter of undertaking and indemnity bond duly attested by Notary Public and also furnished form no.29 and 30 mandatory for transfer of vehicle from the name of complainant to the name of Insurance Company. He also furnished affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate and now, he cannot claim anything more on account of insurance claim. They have made payment of insurance claim on account of theft of truck of complainant on sub standard basis and complainant has duly suffered affidavit in their favour and now he cannot seek any undue advantage

 

cc no.-172 of 2018

from them. they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                  From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OP, it is observed that case of complainant is that his insured truck was stolen during the validity of insurance period and as per rules he gave due intimation regarding this incident to OP and also got recorded FIR  to this effect, but OP have illegally and unlawfully did not clear the entire claim and made part payment for insurance claim for no reason, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply OP stressed on the point that  there is nothing due towards them on account of insurance claim for theft of vehicle of complainant. As per OP they have made payment of claim amount to him and now he is not entitled for anything more. To prove their version, ld counsel for OP has drawn our  attention towards document Ex OP-2 which is a copy of affidavit given by complainant before Executive Magistrate, Faridkot, it reveals the fact that complainant himself agreed to receive Rs.3,73,500/-from them on account of insurance claim for theft of his truck. Further Ex OP-3 and Ex OP-4 are copies of letter of indemnity and letter of undertaking wherein he has agreed to receive Rs.3,73,500/-from Op in full and final settlement of his claim for theft of his vehicle no.RJ-13G-9504 covered under Insurance Policy No.31/15/6753. Ex OP-5 is copy of letter of subrogation issued by complainant in favour of OP that states that on receipt of Rs.3,73,500/-from New India Assurance Company in full and

cc no.-172 of 2018

final settlement of his claim for theft of his vehicle, he has transferred  and abandoned all rights against his vehicle to OP and now nothing is due towards Insurance Company under Insurance Policy in question. OP have provided sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their version and it is observed that all  the documents are authentic and are beyond any doubt. There seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

11                                            From the above discussion and documents and evidence  placed on record by Opposite Party, we are of considered opinion that complainant has already received Rs.3,73,500/-in full and final satisfaction of insurance claim on account of theft of his truck from New India Assurance Company Ltd and now, nothing is due towards OP against insurance claim. Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 1.05.2019         

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                         President