Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/135/2014

Malkiat singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The OIC Comp ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh B S Randhawa

15 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 135 of 2014

                                           Date of institution : 07.10.2014                                                  Date of decision    : 15.02.2016

Malkiat Singh son of Sh. Gurmail Singh, resident of village Lohar Majra Kalan, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office at Oriental House, P.B. No.7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, through its Chairman.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Surindra Building, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
4. Mohaninder Singh, Surveyor of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                             

Quorum

    Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                    

    Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                      

   Sh. A.B.Aggarwal, Member                                                     

Present :       Sh.B.S.Randhawa, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                

                      Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OPs No.1 to 3.                 

                      OP No.4 exparte.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

 

                      Complainant, Malkiat Singh son of Sh. Gurmail Singh, resident of village Lohar Majra Kalan, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant got insured his truck bearing Registration No. PB-23J-8791 Model 2010, Engine No. E1697586, Chassis No. 4A2H26115, with the OPs vide insurance Cover Note No. Chd-d499182, policy No.233603/31/2012/6937 for an insured amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the period from 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2012 and he paid Rs.30,962/- as full and final insurance premium. The truck in question met with an accident on 19.06.2012 at T point Jalbehra near village Sadhugarh, P.P. Nabipur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, while the complainant was coming from Rajpura to Sirhind at about 6:00 A.M. and the truck was heavily damaged in the said accident. The complainant informed OP No.3 regarding the accident and he completed all the formalities for obtaining the claim regarding the damage to the said vehicle. OP No.3 appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and gave his report and also competed all the formalities. The complainant also lodged D.D.R. No.13 dated 19.06.2012 with the police of P.P. Nabipur regarding the accident. Thereafter the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Rishi Body Builder near Yadav Dhabha, G.T.Road, Sirhind, Dhingra Shop, Sirhind and from Balbir Singh Painter and Denter, Sirhind  and he also purchased spare parts of the said vehicle from various shops and an amount of more than Rs.4,00,000/- has been spent by the complainant for repair of the vehicle. The complainant handed over all the original bills regarding the repair of the said vehicle to OP No.4 for getting passed the claim amount from OPs No. 1 to 3. Thereafter the claim, for the loss suffered by the complainant, was lodged with the OPs and he also furnished all the requisite documents and particulars to the OPs as required by them. The OPs assured the complainant that his claim would be settled within a short period after completing the requisite formalities. But nothing has been done by the OPs inspite of repeated requests and reminders made by the complainant and ultimately after dilly delaying the matter the OPs totally refused to pay the above said claim and repudiated the same, vide letter dated 08.08.2013. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % P.A. and further to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3.           Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs but OP No.4 choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Therefore, OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte

4.                   The complaint is contested by OP No.1 to 3, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is misuse and abuse of the process of law; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, they stated that after receiving the claim form from the complainant, they appointed Sh. Mohan Inder Singh, Surveyor, who reported, vide his report dated 06.12.2012, regarding the difference of time of alleged accident. As per police report, the time of accident was 6 am, but as per claim forms received from the complainant, the complainant/insured had replaced radiator, inter cooler on spot of accident i.e. near Sadhugarh. It was surprising that the insured decided to change major parts of the vehicle in question on the spot instead of informing the OPs for spot survey.  The OPs also appointed Er. K.S.Chandok, Investigator, who submitted his report dated 16.07.2013, vide which he reported that the vehicle in question met with an accident at G.T. Road, near Sadhugarh and got damaged. The same was taken to workshop at Sirhind for repair through crane without arranging spot survey. He further reported that insured had reported the matter to police on 19.06.2012 with changed date and time of accident as 19.06.2012 on 6 am instead of 15.06.2012 at 8 pm. At the time of final survey of the claim, the insured had indicated to surveyor that he has changed Radiator and Inter Cooler at accident site. Thus, the insured had deviated defects and manipulated the replacement of radiator and inter cooler without inspection of surveyor. Accordingly, the OPs rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 to 3. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, insurance certificate cum policy schedule Ex. C-2, attested copy of RC Ex. C-3, DDR Ex. C-4, copies of bills Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8, copy of claim form Ex. C-9, attested copy of repudiation letter Ex. C-10, affidavit of Balbir Singh, Denter, Ex. C-11, affidavit of Dharminder Singh Ex. C-12, affidavit of Paramjit Singh Ex. C-13, affidavit of Jatinder Singh, Ex. C-14 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No.1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mohan Inder Singh Ex. OP1/1, attested copy of survey report Ex. OP1/2, policy Ex. OP1/3, copy of statement of Malkiat Singh dated 24.03.2013 Ex. OP1/4, affidavit of A.K. Sehgal Ex. OP1/5, true copy of documents i.e. repudiation letter Ex. OP1/6, DDR Ex. OP1/7, Claim form Ex. OP1/8, investigation report dated 16.07.2013 Ex. OP1/9 and closed the evidence.

6.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant in an arbitrary and hasty manner. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the same was required to be repaired. The ld. counsel pleaded that if the OPs feel that the damaged parts of the vehicle were changed, then the OPs be directed to deduct the amounts of the said parts. He further pleaded that the vehicle had to be towed away as the accident took place in the middle of the road. The damaged truck was blocking the traffic; therefore the concerned police officials asked the complainant to move his damaged vehicle, enabling the traffic to flow smoothly. The ld. counsel argued that the statements of the complainant were recorded by the investigator after a period of 9 months from the date of accident. The ld. counsel further argued that there is enough evidence placed on record, which proves that complainant had not intentionally misrepresented the OPs. The ld. counsel also argued that it is clearly established from the act and conduct of the OPs, that they had repudiated the claim in arbitrary manner and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

7.                   On the other hand, the ld.counsel for OP No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the claim of the complainant had been rightly repudiated, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy. He also submitted that a surveyor was appointed by the OPs in order to assess the factual loss and report of the surveyor i.e Ex.OP1/2. He further stated that thereafter the OPs appointed an investigator, in order to know the true factual position. The ld. counsel pleaded that the investigator in his report i.e Ex.OP1/9 had observed, that there were contradictory statements with regard to the date of accident and the surveyor had also observed that radiator and intercooler were changed by the complainant at the site of accident. The ld. counsel argued that due to the conduct of the complainant and the findings of investigator the claim of the complainant was rejected.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the material placed on record by both the parties that the truck of the complainant met with an accident. We agree with the survey report i.e Ex.OP1/2 that the complainant had changed some damaged parts of the truck at the site of the accident and this fact is also supported by the investigation report i.e Ex.OP1/9.

9.                   In our view the said truck was duly insured at the time of accident, if under the prevailing circumstances the complainant was compelled to remove his accidental truck from the site of accident, by changing some damaged parts, then the OPs could have deducted the amount of the damaged parts, got changed by the complainant and reimbursed the claim of the complainant, as per the survey report i.e Ex.OP1/2. In our opinion the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant on mere technical grounds. There is nothing material on record, that the complainant committed some kind of fraud by changing the place of occurrence of the accident or by concealing any material, which grossly violates the terms and conditions of the policy.

10.                 It has been held in number of judgments by the Hon’ble State Commission, National Commission and Hon’ble Apex Court that report of surveyor is an important document and it cannot be ignored lightly. We have gone through the report of surveyor i.e Ex-OP1/2. All details of items damaged and the amount awarded are given and there does not appear any ground for rejecting this report. Therefore the loss assessed by the surveyor is accepted. However the findings in the investigation report are contradictory, hence the same cannot be relied upon.

11.                 Accordingly we are of the view, that the OPs have committed deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the complainant. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-,(One Lakh Sixty Five thousands) as per the report of surveyor i.e Ex-OP1/2 after deducting the amount of the damaged parts changed by the complainant  and also to pay 6% interest p.a from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-(Seven thousands), as compensation on account of mental agony alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3000/-(Three thousands)  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Hence the present complaint is partly accepted.

12.                 The present complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period, as the parties had been lingering on the matter, on the pretext of out of court settlement. 

13.                 Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:15.02.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member