Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Kulwant Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to accept the claim of the complainant and to grant/ release the insurance claim pertaining to the motorcycle/ vehicle of the complainant bearing its Engine No. RFF03543 and Chassis No. FRF76111 to the complainant  immediately without any delay and the opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Motorcycle make Bajaj Platina 100 from the opposite party No.4 bearing Engine No.RFF03543 and Chassis No. FRF76111 vide Challan dated 5.10.2016 by way of finance from H.D.F.C Bank Limited Branch Tarn Taran. Thereafter, on 23.10.2015 the complainant had got insured his above said motorcycle bearing Engine No. RFF03543 and Chassis No. FRF76111 from the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, vide motor vehicle Insurance cover Note No. CHD-D 776222 dated 23.10.2015 time 5.00 A.M./P.M and the above said insurance of motorcycle of the complainant was valid since 23.10.2015 to 22.10.2016. On 4.11.2015 Mohammad Mussaber and Mohammad Itsham took the motorcycle from the complainant and they went to Adda Harike for taking some medicine and when they reached infront of Satluj Palace Harike, one Bus of New Deep Company Limited came in very high speed in rash and negligent manner from Tarn Taran side which struck towards the above said motorcycle of Mohammad Mussaber and Mohammad Itsham at about 7.10 P.M. and due to receiving multiple injuries they both died in the above said roadside accident and the above said motorcycle of the complainant was badly damaged. F.I.R. No.146 dated 05.11.2015 was registered on the statement of Mohammad Isrial son of Shekh Dumme, Caste Musalmaan, Bihar at P.S. Harike against the New Deep Bus Private Limited Company. Thereafter, the complainant has got repaired the above said insured motorcycle from the opposite party/ respondent No.4 vide Job Card No.RJC106262015004624 dated 25.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.7,432/- and Bill No.253 dated 26.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1800/- totaling Rs.9,232/-. Thereafter, the complainant applied for getting the insurance claim of the above said motorcycle to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 through opposite party No.4, but the opposite party No. 1 to 3 have flatly, finally and straightway refused to give the insurance claim of the above said motorcycle to the complainant. The complainant has made several requests to opposite parties for grant/ release of insurance claim regarding the repair of above said motorcycle to the complainant and also presented all the requisite papers, but inspite this, opposite parties did not pay any heed to it and it amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed.  

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he had suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. As per the FIR No. 146 dated 05.11.2015, under Section 304-A/279/427 IPC, P.S. Harike no vehicle damaged, complainant has not mentioned its Registration Number, even Engine Number & Chassis Number, neither the name of the driver of bus nor its Registration Number was mentioned. The alleged vehicle mentioned was not insured with the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and no insurance policy was ever placed on record in the present complaint. As per the alleged version put forward by the complainant, he has not placed on record a single document regarding the alleged submissions in the complaint regarding giving representation and denial made by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.   This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. On merits, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have denied all other allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4        The Opposite Party No. 4 appeared and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form.  The opposite party No. 4 is carrying on its business under the name and style of ‘Baba Motors’ and not as Baba & Bajaj Baba Motors as has been mentioned in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 4 and even there is no such allegation in the complaint against the opposite party No. 4. As such, opposite party No. 4 has wrongly and illegally been dragged to the present litigation without any reason or rhyme. There is no case of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 4. The complainant has not come with clean hands to this Forum and has suppressed material facts which disentitle him from seeking any relief. On merits, it is pleaded that motor cycle in question was brought to the opposite party No. 4 in accidental damaged condition.  Said motorcycle was repaired as per instructions of the complainant and up to his satisfaction. After being satisfied with the repair work, the complainant paid the repair charges.  The complainant never complained/ requested for claim to opposite party No. 4.  The opposite party No. 4 has nothing to do with the insurance claim of the complainant with the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.  Since the insurance claim was not moved to the opposite party No. 4 nor the same is pending with the opposite party No. 4, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4 has denied all other allegations leveled in the complaint and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

5        In order to prove their case, the complainant has tendered in to evidence his affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, affidavit of Pargat Singh Ex. C-2 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-9, and marked A and B and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of H.S. Sandhu Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ex. OPs 1 to 3/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs 1 to 3/2 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/7 and closed the evidence, The opposite party No. 4 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Pritpal Singh Works Manager of Baba Motors Ex. OP4/1 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

7        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had purchased one Motorcycle make Bajaj Platina 100 from the opposite party No.4 bearing Engine No.RFF03543 and Chassis No. FRF76111 vide Challan dated 5.10.2016 by way of finance from H.D.F.C Bank Limited Branch Tarn Taran. Thereafter, on 23.10.2015 the complainant had got insured his above said motorcycle bearing Engine No. RFF03543 and Chassis No. FRF76111 from the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, vide motor vehicle Insurance cover Note No. CHD-D 776222 dated 23.10.2015 time 5.00 A.M./P.M vide Ex. C-3. The above said insurance of motorcycle of the complainant was valid since 23.10.2015 to 22.10.2016. He further contended that during the policy period i.e. on 4.11.2015 Mohammad Mussaber and Mohammad Itsham took the motorcycle from the complainant and they went to Adda Harike for taking some medicine and when they reached infront of Satluj Palace Harike, one Bus of New Deep Company Limited came in very high speed in rash and negligent manner from Tarn Taran side which struck towards the above said motorcycle of Mohammad Mussaber and Mohammad Itsham at about 7.10 P.M. and due to receiving multiple injuries they both died in the above said roadside accident and the above said motorcycle of the complainant was badly damaged. F.I.R. No.146 dated 05.11.2015 was registered on the statement of Mohammad Isrial son of Shekh Dumme, Caste Musalmaan, Bihar at P.S. Harike against the New Deep Bus Private Limited Company and the FIR is Ex. C-4 on the record. He further contended that the complainant has got repaired the above said insured motorcycle from the opposite party/ respondent No.4 vide Job Card No.RJC106262015004624 dated 25.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.7,432/- and Bill No.253 dated 26.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1800/- totaling Rs.9,232/-. Thereafter, the complainant applied for getting the insurance claim of the above said motorcycle to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 through opposite party No.4, but the opposite party No. 1 to 3 have flatly, finally and straightway refused to give the insurance claim of the above said motorcycle to the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have argued that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in its present form. He further contended that as per the FIR No. 146 dated 05.11.2015, under Section 304-A/279/427 IPC, P.S. Harike no vehicle damaged, complainant has not mentioned its Registration Number, even Engine Number & Chassis Number, neither the name of the driver of bus nor its Registration Number was mentioned. He further contended that the vehicle mentioned was not insured with the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and no insurance policy was ever placed on record in the present complaint.  The opposite party No. 4 contented that the motorcycle in question was brought to the opposite party No. 4 in accidental damaged condition.  Said motorcycle was repaired as per instructions of the complainant and up to his satisfaction. After being satisfaction with the repair work, the complainant paid the repair charges and the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

8        It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 4 as the same is not denied by the opposite party No. 4 in its reply.  The complainant has got insured his motorcycle in question from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 vide Ex. C-3 commencing from 23.10.2015 to 22.10.2016.  The motorcycle in question met with accident on 4.11.2015 which is quite evident from the FIR Ex. C-4. The opposite party No. 4 has also admitted in their written version that the motor cycle in question was brought by the complainant in an accidental condition and they repaired the motorcycle as per instructions of the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. H.S. Sandhu Branch Manager Ex, OPs 1 to 3/1 in which in Para No. 15 he solemnly affirm and declared that the complainant has intimated a belated stage regarding the alleged accident and above all the Tax of vehicle was paid after the accident of vehicle. As the insured has purchased the vehicle on 23.10.2015 and he got it insured on the same day. He deposited the road Tax on 10.11.2015 and applied for its RC. The accident took place on 4.11.2015. Therefore, the complaint be considered according to terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The claimants have violated the rules and regulations of the policy. As per the Surveyor deputed by the Oriental Insurance Company, Sukhbir Singh Arora has submitted his report vide which he recommended the loss to the company for Rs. 6,823/-. The claimant is claiming excess claim and he has not approached the forum with clean hands as he is not entitled for the claim. As such, in the present case, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 themselves admitted in the affidavit Ex. OPs 1 to 3/1 that the surveyor has recommended the loss of Rs. 6,823/- and the complainant is claiming excess amount. It shows that the accident took place and surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 of the vehicle in question.  The complaint against the opposite party No. 4 is dismissed.

9        The complainant has got prepared his vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 4 and has spent an amount of Rs. 7,432/- and Rs. 1,800/- total Rs. 9,232/- and to support this the complainant has placed on record documents Mark A and Mark B issued by the opposite party No. 4 which shows that detail of spare parts and labour charges etc. In this way, the complainant has proved on record that he has spent an amount of Rs. 9,232/-,  but the surveyor has recommended the amount of Rs. 6,823/- only vide report of the surveyor Ex. OP 1 to 3/2. As such, the complainant has fully proved on record that he has spent amount of Rs. 9,232/- on the repair of motorcycle and the motorcycle in question is fully insured with the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 vide insurance policy Ex. C-3 and the accident took place during the period of insurance policy Ex. C-3. But the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have not given the claim of the complainant for a long time and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.  

10      In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 9,232/- (Rs. thousand two hundred and thirty two only) i.e. amount spent by the complainant in the insured vehicle. The complainant is also entitled to Rs 4,000/- ( Rs. Four Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 2,500/- ( Rs. Two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation expenses from both the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.