Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that she got insured her car bearing No.PB90-1008 with the Opposite Party  vide policy No. 3611003180300000370 valid for the period w.e.f. 20.04.2018 to 19.04.2019. Further alleges that unfortunately, the aforesaid insured vehicle met with an accident in the month of November, 2018 and intimation was given to the Opposite Parties and they appointed surveyor  and accordingly, the damaged insured vehicle was brought to Radiat Toyota, Chadha Super Cars  Private Limited, but despite the cashless policy, the Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,04,543/- vide cheque dated 27.11.2018. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties for the reimbursement of  repair charges and at that time, the Opposite Parties obtained blank cancelled cheque alongwith copy of Aadhar card, PAN card to the surveyor, but till date, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to make the genuine repair charges despite repeated requests and reminders and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Party may be directed to  make the payment of Rs.1,04,543/-  alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 27.11.2018 till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the redressal of her grievances. 

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party  and the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous.   The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The complainant has not approached this District Consumer Commission with clean hands, rather he has wilfully concealed the material and patent facts from this District Consumer Commission which ipso-facto disentitles the complainant to seek any relief against the Opposite Party. In fact the claim intimation was received by the Opposite Party  through Motor Claim Form, immediately Sh.Rahul Sethi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ludhiana was appointed to investigate the case and to assess the loss of the vehicle. Said surveyor submitted his report dated 03.12.2018 and recommended the net assess loss of Rs.1,02,075/- and Opposite Party  immediately processed the claim and passed the same for Rs.1,01,500/- and accordingly, the Opposite Party  sent the letter dated 20.12.2018 to the Complainant to provide the KYC form and cancelled cheque  from the account, detail so that the Opposite Party  could make the payment through RTGS in the said account of Complainant. Again letters dated 15.01.2019 and then on 30.01.2019 were written to the Complainant, but the Complainant failed to provide the required information/ documents to the Opposite Party  and not only this, the Opposite Party  also sent email dated 06.05.2019 to the Complainant asking to provide the KYC and cancelled cheque, but the Complainant did not provide the requiste information/ documents and hence, due to non furnishing of required information, the payment is pending to be paid.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  On merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.   Hence, the complaint is pre mature for want of requisite information/ documents from the Complainant side and  as such, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.    

3.       In order to  prove  her  case, the complainant has placed on record  her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of policy Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Jaswant Singh Dhaap Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.OP8 and and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that  the Complainant got insured her car bearing No.PB90-1008 with the Opposite Party  vide policy No. 3611003180300000370 valid for the period w.e.f. 20.04.2018 to 19.04.2019. Further alleges that unfortunately, the aforesaid insured vehicle met with an accident in the month of November, 2018 and intimation was given to the Opposite Parties and they appointed surveyor  and accordingly, the damaged insured vehicle was brought to Radiat Toyota, Chadha Super Cars  Private Limited, but despite the cashless policy, the Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,04,543/- vide cheque dated 27.11.2018. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties for the reimbursement of  repair charges and at that time, the Opposite Parties obtained blank cancelled cheque alongwith copy of Aadhar card, PAN card to the surveyor, but till date, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to make the genuine repair charges despite repeated requests and reminders and hence, the ground for the retaining the genuine claim of the complainant is quite illegal and false one.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that first of all,  the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court and this Hon’ble District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It is further contended that  the complainant has not approached this District Consumer Commission with clean hands, rather he has wilfully concealed the material and patent facts from this District Consumer Commission which ipso-facto disentitles the complainant to seek any relief against the Opposite Parties. Further contended that in fact, the  claim intimation was received by the Opposite Party  through Motor Claim Form, immediately Sh.Rahul Sethi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ludhiana was appointed to investigate the case and to assess the loss of the vehicle. Said surveyor submitted his report dated 03.12.2018 and recommended the net assess loss of Rs.1,02,075/- and Opposite Party  immediately processed the claim and passed the same for Rs.1,01,500/- and accordingly, the Opposite Party  sent the letter dated 20.12.2018 to the Complainant to provide the KYC form and cancelled cheque  from the account, detail so that the Opposite Party  could make the payment through RTGS in the said account of Complainant. Again letters dated 15.01.2019 and then on 30.01.2019 were written to the Complainant, but the Complainant failed to provide the required information/ documents to the Opposite Party  and not only this, the Opposite Party  also sent email dated 06.05.2019 to the Complainant asking to provide the KYC and cancelled cheque, but the Complainant did not provide the requisite information/ documents and hence, due to non furnishing of required information, the payment is pending to be paid and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       Perusal of the contention raised by Opposite Party  is that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court and this  District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, (paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233.  Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 101 of 2009 titled as Mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 07.09.2021 also held so.  Hence, this District Consumer Commission is  not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.

9.       The main ground for the non payment of the repair charges of the insured vehicle by the Opposite Party  is that  after receiving the intimation, immediately Sh.Rahul Sethi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ludhiana was appointed to investigate the case and to assess the loss of the vehicle. Said surveyor submitted his report dated 03.12.2018 and recommended the net assess loss of Rs.1,02,075/- and Opposite Party  immediately processed the claim and passed the same for Rs.1,01,500/- and accordingly, the Opposite Party  sent the letter dated 20.12.2018 to the Complainant to provide the KYC form and cancelled cheque  from the account, detail so that the Opposite Party  could make the payment through RTGS in the said account of Complainant. On the other hand, the Complainant has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Party  on the ground that the Complainant has already provided the blank cancelled cheque alongwith copy of Aadhar card, PAN card to the surveyor, but till date, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to make the genuine repair charges despite repeated requests and reminders. Perusal of the record shows that the  Complainant has failed to prove said assertion regarding providing the requisite information/ documents  to the Opposite Party. Not even a single document or iota of evidence has been placed on record by the Complainant to prove that she ever provided such bank account number detail to the Opposite Party. On the other hand, the Opposite Party time and again vide different letters Ex.OP4, Ex.OP5, Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP7 made requests to the Complainant to provide the cheque of Complainant Neena Kashyap so that they can make the payment, but despite repeated letters, the Complainant did not bother to provide the bank detail.

10.     In view of this,  the Opposite Party-Insurance Company  is directed to  make the payment of net assess loss of Rs.1,02,075/- (Rupees one lakh two thousands seventy five only) to the insured vehicle of  the Complainant  within 30 days subject to providing the bank detail by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, failing which the Opposite Party  shall be liable to make the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.04.2019 till its realisation. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

11.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.02.2022.