Punjab

Sangrur

CC/74/2015

Balkar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

The OIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Charanvir Singh

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    74

                                                Instituted on:      12.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       21.08.2015

 

 

Balkar Dass son of Shri Amar Dass, resident of Village Tunga, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Raj Kumar, Incharge, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office: (Extension Counter) above OBC Bank, Peeran Wala Gate, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Charanvir Singh, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balkar Dass, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got the services of the OPs by getting insured his Mahindra Bolero Pickup car bearing registration number PB-11-AA-6590 from the Ops vide policy number 233592/31/2014/465 for the period from 19.7.2013 to 18.7.2014. Further case of the complainant is that on 30.5.2014 the complainant after loading the vehicle with mangoes was going from Tohana to Barnala and at about 12.30 AM, when the vehicle reached near Bridge Verka on Sangrur road Dirba, due to flashing of lights of another vehicle, the vehicle in question struck against the rolling bridge, due to which the vehicle of the complainant was damaged and front cabin, doors etc. were also damaged. It is further averred that the complainant also intimated the OPs about the accident and thereafter the vehicle was taken to Khan Denting Painting, Nabha Road, Bagrian, where the vehicle was duly repaired and an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was incurred by the complainant on the repairs vide bill number 1 dated 25.6.2014. Thereafter the complainant requested the Ops for the reimbursement of the amount, but all in vain.  It is further stated that the complainant has submitted all the relevant documents to the OPs, but no claim was settled.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to reimburse to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,59,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant himself breached the terms and conditions of the policy, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, the accident of the vehicle of the complainant has been denied. It is further denied that the complainant ever gave intimation to the Ops about the accident.  It is also denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- on the repairs of the vehicle. It is further stated that after receiving the intimation, the Ops immediately appointed the surveyor to visit the spot and also to investigate the matter.  It is further stated that Mr. R.K. Bansal, surveyor and loss assessor sent registered letter  dated 2.12.2014 to the complainant  and demanded various documents to settle the claim of the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant failed to submit the documents to the surveyor, as such the surveyor sent final letter dated 19.12.2014 for submission of the desired documents, failing which to suffer ‘no claim’. But, the complainant did not supply the documents. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of Form number 23, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-4 copy of DDR, Ex.C-5 copy of bill dated 25.6.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 postal receipt, Ex.C-8 copy of letter, Ex.C-9 copy of certificate, Ex.C-10 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 copy of letter dated 2.12.2014, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 19.12.2014,  Ex.OP/3 affidavit  and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the Ops for the period from 19.7.2013 to 18.7.2014. The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident near Dirba on 30.5.2014 and suffered a loss of Rs.1,59,000/-. Thereafter intimation was given to the OPs and  the vehicle in question was got repaired from Khan Denting Painting, Bagrian, a copy of the bill on file is Ex.C-4.   On the other hand, the case of the Ops is that the complainant did not submit the required documents such as estimate, claim form, registration certificate, driving license and policy to assess the loss. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that all the documents have already been submitted by the complainant  to the surveyor of the OPs.   It is obvious, if the complainant has submitted the documents to the surveyor, then we feel there is no necessity of demanding the same documents time and again by the surveyor of the OPs or by the OPs.  However, in the present proceedings, the complainant has already supplied the copies of documents to the learned counsel for the OPs. In the circumstances, we find it to be a fit case for directing the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the documents already submitted by the complainant.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we direct Ops to  decide the fate of the claim of the complainant within a period of thirty days and further to intimate their decision to the complainant through registered letter.  However, it is open for the complainant to approach this Forum again, if the complainant feels dissatisfaction from the decision of the OPs. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.

 

7.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 21, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member