BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 259 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.4.2015

Date of Decision: 22.01.2016

1. S. Manpreet Singh S/o S. Mohinder Singh R/o 162, Ram Nagar Colony, Guru  Nanakpura, Islamabad, Tehsil and District Amritsar through its General power of Attorney Smt. Rajinder Kaur W/o Late S. Mohinder Singh R/o 162, Ram Nagar Colony, Guru Nanakpura, Islamabad Tehsil and District Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office-3,26 , Kennedy Avenue Court Road, Opp. PWD Rest House, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer (143001)

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh. Amandeep Mandla,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party         : Sh. P.N.Khanna, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Manpreet Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he being the registered owner of Chevrolet Optra car bearing registration No. PB-02-AP-5786 got the same insured with the opposite party vide cover note No. CHD 121136 dated 13.2.2014 for the period from 17.2.2-14 to 16.2.2015 after making premium of Rs. 12092/-. According to the complainant on 13.3.2014 the said car met with the accident  as suddenly one stray cow came in front of the car and the car got struck into the divider of the road and caused a huge damage to the insured vehicle. The complainant intimated the said incident to the police of P.S. Cantonment,Amritsar and a DDR No. 38 dated 14.3.2014 to this effect was lodged  by the police. The complainant then lodged claim with the opposite party vide claim No. 235301/31/2015/000011 for settlement of his claim after submission of all the relevant documents  as well as all the necessary information as required by the opposite party. Therefore, complainant visited the opposite party many times and requested them to settle his claim but the opposite party put the matter of under one pretext or the other. Complainant also served legal notice  upon the opposite party for the disbursement of the claim but the opposite party issued letter dated 23.3.2015  repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of false and frivolous investigation report. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party  to pay claim of Rs.  1,7,594/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had obtained the policy on 13.2.2014 for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015. It was submitted that the insurance was not fresh one but was renewal of the policy which was issued on the basis of earlier cover note produced by the insured  having been obtained from Future Generali India Insurance Co. for the period from 16.2.2013 to 15.2.2014. It was submitted that the renewal of the policy was done by the opposite party  without inspection of the vehicle  and believing the said cover note as valid and correct one. Thereafter on verification, it transpired that infact the policy issued by the said Future Generali India is different one as per policy issued by them. It has been confirmed by the said Insurance company that  the policy in favour of the insured was only issued for the period from 11.6.2012 to 10.6.2013 and not from 16.2.2013 to 15.2.2014 . As such it was confirmed that the complainant has got renewed the policy by fraudulent means . Therefore, on the basis of said renewal, no claim was payable  and as such the claim has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.K.Sharma,Divisional Manager Ex.OP2, affidavit of Sh. Paramjit Singh,Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP2, survey report Ex.OP3,affidavit of Dr. Simrajit Singh Bawa,Investigator Ex.OP4 alongwith documents Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP13.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle  Chevrolet Optra car bearing registration No. PB02 AP 5786 insured with the opposite party vide cover note No. CHD 121136 dated 13.2.2014 for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015. On 13.3.2014 the said vehicle met with an accident as one stray cow suddenly came in front of the car and struck into the divider of the road as a result of which the insured car was badly damaged. The complainant intimated the accident to the police of P.S. Cantonment,Amritsar  and after investigation by the police DDR  No. 38 dated 14.3.2014 was entered. Opposite party was also informed in this regard. The complainant lodged claim regarding the loss to the vehicle to the opposite party vide claim No. 235301/31/2015/000011 and the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant and the complainant served legal notice dated 9.2.2015 . Opposite party vide letter dated 23.3.2015 Ex.OP2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of investigation report . Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that  on receipt of the information as well as  claim lodged by the complainant, opposite party appointed surveyor as well as investigator , who submitted their reports. Report of the surveyor is Ex.OP3, who assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 54254/- less salvage . Whereas the investigator submitted his report dated 10.12.2014  Ex.OP5 in  which he submitted that he verified the authenticity of the cover note of Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited,produced by the complainant regarding the previous insurance of the vehicle and it was found that the cover note does not belong to Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd as per their record. So the cover note presented by the complainant Manpreet Singh , is not genuine and is fake one. Rather the said Insurance company has confirmed that they had only issued policy for the period from 11.6.2012 to 10.6.2013 and not for the period from 16.2.2013 to 15.2.2014 which shows that the complainant has manipulated the dates in the relevant policy of M/s. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd and got renewal of policy from the opposite party by mis-representation of facts as well as by fraudulent means without getting investigation of the vehicle in question  which was mandatory. Opposite party sent reply dated 7.3.2015 Ex.OP10 to the legal notice served by the complainant. Opposite party has,therefore, rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.3.2015 Ex.OP12. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his vehicle Chevrolet Optra car bearing registration No.  PB-02-AP 5786 insured with the opposite party vide cover note No.CHD 121136 dated 13.2.2014 Ex.C-3 for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015 on payment of premium of Rs. 12092/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.3.2014 and the complainant lodged report with the police of P.S. Cantonment ,Amritsar on 14.3.2014 on the basis of which DDR  No. 38 dated 14.3.2014 Ex.C-5 was recorded at P.S. Cantonment, Amritsar. The complainant got repaired the vehicle from authorized service Centre and spent a sum of Rs. 1,17,594/-. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss to the vehicle to  the tune of Rs. 54,254.72 paise less salvage value Rs 1800/-. However, opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of surveyor report, who submitted his report dated 10.12.2014 Ex.OP5 and 5.12.2014 Ex.OP6 stating that the cover note of previous policy of the vehicle in question obtained by the complainant from Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd. for the period from 17.2.2013 to 16.2.2014 Ex.OP7 was not genuine and is fake one and the complainant has obtained the policy in question from the opposite party for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015 vide cover note dated 13.2.2014 Ex.C-3 by mis-representation of facts and the opposite party could not get the vehicle inspected . We have gone through the entire documents produced on record by both the parties. The complainant got his vehicle in question insured from the opposite party vide cover note Ex.C-3 bearing No. 121136 dated 13.2.2014 for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015 . The complainant got his vehicle insured from the opposite party four days prior to the commencement of the new policy period . It was the duty of the opposite party to get confirmed from the previous insurance company whose cover note Ex.OP7 was given by the complainant, to find out whether the said Insurance policy was genuine or not. But the opposite party did not do so before issuing the Insurance policy Ex.C-3, to the complainant. Apart from this when a person is changing the Insurance company , it was the duty of the Insurance company, who is issuing the new policy, to get the vehicle inspected and to get the previous Insurance policy of said vehicle confirmed from the previous Insurance company, with whom the said vehicle had been allegedly insured, by the complainant. But the opposite party did not  act as a prudent institution. The opposite party has issued policy in question to the complainant insuring his vehicle for the period from 17.2.2014 to 16.2.2015 vide cover note Ex.C-3 without following proper procedure and without inspecting the vehicle in question. So at this stage the opposite party cannot take benefit of their own wrongs. The loss occurred to the vehicle of the complainant during the running period of the Insurance policy of the opposite party and as such they are liable to settle the claim of the complainant. However, opposite party or the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd can take legal action against the complainant for forging their document Ex.OP7 and using the same as genuine. But the opposite party is liable to pay claim of the complainant because the loss occurred to the insured vehicle of the complainant during the period covered by the Insurance policy issued by the opposite party Ex.C-3.
9. As regards quantum of claim, opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss occurred to the insured vehicle of the complainant and the said surveyor vide his report Ex.OP3 dated 19.6.2014 assessed net loss i.e. net liability of the company to the tune of Rs. 54,255/- less salvage value Rs. 1800/-. The complainant neither challenged this surveyor report nor pointed out any defect in the survey report. As such the opposite party is liable to pay this amount as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 54255/- less salvage value Rs. 1800/- to the complainant.
10. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay this amount of Rs. 54,255/- less salvage value Rs. 1800/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy  of this order ; failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

22.01.2016                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member