BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No:80 of 2008<br /> Date of Institution:15.07.2008<br /> Date of Service:07.08.2008<br /> Date of Decision:16.10.2008<br /> <br /> Jugraj Singh (aged 55 years) son of Sh.Gurdev Singh, resident of village: Kore Wala, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Manager, Head Office, New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay.<br /> 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 7, Gulabi Bagh, G.T.Road, Moga, Distt.Moga.<br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla,President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Sukhdev Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Adv.counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.Chawla, President)<br /> Sh.Jugraj Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bombay through its Manager and another (herein-after referred to as ‘Insurance Company’)- Opposite Parties directing them to pay the insurance claim of Rs.474000/- regarding the Mini Bus (Tata-407) bearing no.PB-29D-9669; not to issue the cheque to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and to pay Rs.50000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, the complainant got insured his Mini Bus (Tata-407) bearing no.PB-29D-9669 with OPs-Insurance Company vide policy no.361100/31/03/01/00002803 for the period w.e.f. 29.7.2003 to 28.07.2004. That on the midnight of 23.2.2004 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some bad elements. That DDR in this regard was entered by the concerned police station regarding the aforesaid theft. That the complainant lodged the claim with OPs-Insurance Company in this regard and submitted original insurance policy and completed all the formalities. That the complainant made various visits in the office of OPs-Insurance Company for the payment of the insured amount, but they repudiated his claim willfully and intentionally on 20.10.2006. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint before this Forum in which the counsel for the OPs-Insurance Company alongwith Sh.S.P.Singla Administrative Officer made a statement on 29.2.2008 that the Insurance Company shall decide the claim of the complainant provided he provides RC duly transferred in his name and also non traceable report to the company. Thereafter, the company shall decide the claim of the complainant within one and half month from the receipt of aforesaid documents and with these directions, this Forum had decided the complaint accordingly. Thereafter, the complainant got cancelled the hypothecation of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd in the R.C and also transferred the same in his name and submitted it with the OPs-Insurance Company as per the directions of this Forum, but the OPs-Insurance Company did not issue the claimed amount/ cheque to the complainant and issued the same in the name of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd inspite of the fact that the complainant had already cancelled the hypothecation in their favour whereas the said bank has no concern with the claim amount. That the OPs-Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant, rather they are bent upon to issue the cheque in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd illegally and unjustly for which they have got no right, title or interest. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Insurance Company who appeared through Sh.Jaswinder Singh Advocate and filed written reply. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standie to file the present complaint and that the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and has been filed only to harass and blackmail the OPs-Insurance Company and its officers. In fact as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the payment of the claim was to be made to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Ludhiana and the complainant can settle his account with them. On merits, the OPs-Insurance Company took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed with costs.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.A1, copy of certified statement Ex.A2, copy of RC Ex.A3, copy of order Ex.A4, copy of ‘NOC’ Ex.A5, copy of application Ex.A6, copy of notice Ex.A7, copy of receipt Ex.A8, copy of untraceable report Ex.A9, copy of form no.35 Ex.A10, copy of receipt of DTO Office Ex.A11, copy of order of Hon’ble High Court Ex.A12 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Insurance Company tendered the affidavit of Sh.J.R.Dhand, Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of letter Ex.R2, copies of postal receipts Ex.R3 to Ex.R5, copy of Indian Motor Tariff Rules Ex.R6, copy of policy Ex.R7 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Sukhdev Singh ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Jaswinder Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Insurance Company and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Sukhdev Singh ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service by issuing the cheque of the claimed amount in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has full force. Admittedly, earlier the complainant filed a complaint against OPs-Insurance Company wherein it was alleged by the OPs-Insurance Company that the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents regarding transfer of RC in his name and non traceable report and for this reason, his claim was not settled. Then, on the statement of counsel for the parties, the complainant was directed to submit the aforesaid documents to the OPs-Insurance Company and the OPs-Insurance Company was also directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 1½ months and the complaint was decided accordingly. Thereafter, the complainant got cancelled the hypothecation in the name of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd in the RC of the vehicle in question and got transferred in his name as per the directions of this Forum and also submitted the copy of the said RC alongwith non traceable report to the OPs-Insurance Company, but inspite of making the payment to him, they issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.474000/- in favour of Kot Mahindra Bank Ltd.<br /> 8. In the instant case the main controversy is as to whether the OPs-Insurance Company can issue the cheque of the claimed amount in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The answer to this question is in negative. When the complainant had already completed all the formalities as required by the OPs-Insurance Company and got cancelled the hypothecation in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vide Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 and submitted the copy of the same to the OPs-Insurance Company, then they have no right, title or interest to issue the cheque of the claimed amount in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. It was the duty of the OPs-Insurance Company to have issued the cheque of the claimed amount in favour of complainant and not in favour of the said bank. Thus, it shows that the OPs-Insurance Company has intentionally and knowingly harassed the complainant in not issuing the cheque in his favour and issuing the same in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Due to the aforesaid callous attitude of the OPs-Insurance Company, the complainant had to file the second complaint in order to get his lawful claim from them. <br /> 9. On the other hand, the contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Insurance Company that the complainant had not got entered the cancellation of hypothecation in the insurance policy and for this reason, the cheque was not issued in his name is concerned, the same has no merit. It is the case of the complainant that as per the directions of this Forum, made in the earlier complaint filed by him, he has submitted copies of the requisite documents i.e. cancellation of hypothecation in the RC and completed other formalities with the OPs-Insurance Company. Thus, it was the duty of the OPs-Insurance Company to have made the entry of the same in the insurance record lying with them. Hence, the aforesaid contention raised by the OPs-Insurance Company has not been substantiated on the file. Therefore, the OPs-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service in not issuing the cheque of the claimed amount in favour of the complainant. <br /> 10. To prove the aforesaid contention, the complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of certified statement Ex.A2, copy of RC Ex.A3, copy of order Ex.A4, copy of ‘NOC’ Ex.A5, copy of application Ex.A6, copy of notice Ex.A7, copy of receipt Ex.A8, copy of untraceable report Ex.A9, copy of form no.35 Ex.A10, copy of receipt of DTO Office Ex.A11, copy of order of Hon’ble High Court Ex.A12. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit of Sh.J.R.Dhand, Divisional Manager Ex.R1 and other documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and we discard the same.<br /> 11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. The OPs-Insurance Company is directed to issue the cheque of the claimed amount i.e. Rs.474000/- in favour of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date, they issued the cheque in favour of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd till its payment and they shall also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:16.10.2008.<br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />