| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.32 of 03.02.2021 Decided on : 29-05-2024 Ram Singh aged about 48 years S/o Bikkar Singh R/o Village Mandi Kalan, Tehsil Phul District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office A-25/27, Asaf All Road, New Delhi-110002; through its Authorized Person/Manager Legal. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 4502, Bank Street, Bathinda, through its Senior Divisional Manager.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Smt. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Smt.Pushwinder Kaur, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Ram Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of tractor trolley (Agricultural implement) bearing registration No.PB-03P-9758 having engine bearing No.E15173 and chassis No.CH22925 that is duly comprehensively insured with opposite parties vide policy bearing No.233200/31/2018/3688 dated 3.11.2017 and valid w.e.f. 3.11.2017 to 2.11.2018 for Rs.9,00,000/- as IDV. This insurance is a cashless insurance. It is alleged that on 19.4.2018, the complainant parked his tractor-trolley at the workshop of Kuldeep Singh @ Manak @ Kato situated in Vishavkarma Market, Barnala Bye Pass Road, Bathinda for its necessary repair. The mechanic after separating the trolley (agricultural implement) from the tractor, started its necessary repair. It is further alleged that on the next day i.e. On 20.4.2018, the complainant alongwith his nephew Ramandeep Singh went the workshop of mechanic and found that the trolley (Agricultural implement) was not there and he enquired from the mechanic, but he openly proclaimed that he has no knowledge about the trolley and also has no responsibility of the trolley. As such, the trolley was stolen. The complainant knowing only how to sign the document, moved an application through his nephew Ramandeep Singh to P.P. Bhucho Mandi that was marked to Head Constable Gurpreet Singh Baba, he called the mechanic Kato in the police station for enquiry, but he was released and Head Constable demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for doing the work, but the complainant under compelled circumstances, paid Rs.10,000/- to Gurpeet Singh Baba Head Constable in the presence of Gurmel Singh of Village Lehra Mohabbat, but despite that Head Constable did not do anything, rather he started threatening the complainant and he did not lodge any FIR against the culprits. It is further alleged that the complainant also informed opposite parties on 21.4.2018. The officials of opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank printed form and also obtained insurance policy and other documents with the assurance that his trolley/agriculture implement is comprehensively insured and claim will be settled and paid to him within one or two months. Thereafter the complainant through his nephew Ramandeep Singh also moved application to S.S.P., Bathinda on 30.4.2018 that was marked to D.S.P vide No.45/Balianwali/18 dated 30.4.2018, but the police did not take any action on this application. It is further alleged that the mechanic Kato committed suicide just after 10 days from the date of theft of trolley of the complainant and in this regard, the police of P.S. Nathana lodged FIR No.97 dated 1.5.2018 U/s 306 IPC on the basis of statement of Hardeep Kaur W/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kato mechanic in which Hardeep Kaur admitted about the theft of trolley of the complainant, but she falsely named the complainant in the FIR. The complainant was discharged from the FIR after enquiry and this FIR was cancelled. It is further alleged that on receiving the intimation about the theft of trolley (agricultural implement), opposite parties did not take any step to settle the claim of the complainant, rather they postponed the matter on one or other pretext whereas he is always ready and willing to co-operate opposite parties for deciding his claim. The complainant has already submitted the documents to opposite parties with the claim form, but they are not ready to settle his claim. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.9 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. with damages and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as damages and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties. As such, the complaint is not entitled to any relief. He has concealed the fact that the complaint is premature as he has not lodged any claim with opposite parties nor submitted any documents with them. He was supposed to lodge the claim with opposite parties alongwith necessary documents as to check the coverage admissibility of the claim, but no claim and documents have been submitted till date on his part. Opposite parties reserve their right to decide the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy as and when any such claim is submitted with the requisite documents. The complainant has failed to lodge any claim and he did not submit any documents with opposite parties. The opposite parties rely upon the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no cause-of-action or locus-standi against opposite parties. The complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite parties qua the alleged cause of action. On merits, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmail Singh dated 10.8.2021 (Ex.C7) and documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C6). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Kataria dated 10.4.2023,(Ex.OP1/1) and document, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Controversy lies in very narrow compass. The version of opposite parties is that the complainant has not lodged the claim regarding the theft of his Trolley which is alleged to be insured under the policy obtained by the complainant till date and they reserve their right to decide the claim as per their terms and conditions as and when the complainant lodges the claim and submits the documents. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is disposed off with the directions to opposite parties to process and settle the claim of the complainant next within 30 days from receiving the claim form alongwith documents from the complainant. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite parties will be liable to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 29-05-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
