Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/115/2016

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar, Adv.

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	115 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	16.02.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	31.05.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Raman Kumar son of Sh.Subhash Chand, R/o H.No.2682/2, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.    

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office CBO-III, Quit Office-15, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN                                   PRESIDENT

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                MEMBER

                   MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA                            MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate

 

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant got his Tata Indigo Car bearing Regd. No.CH-02-AA-7827 insured with OP vide Ann.C-1 effective from 9.2.2015 to 8.2.2016.  It is averred that on 19.6.2015, Sh.Pankaj Kumar, brother of the complainant, was driving the said car and going from Sunrise Hotel Dhakauli, Zirakpur to his house, then one motorcycle rider, driving his motorcycle No.HR03K-2442, rashly and negligently came on the wrong side and hit the car of the complainant at K-Area Dhakauli Zirakpur, resultant to which the car suffered damages and the driver of the car and motorcycle also received injuries.  An FIR No.133, dated 21.6.2013 was registered at Police Station Zirakpur (Ann.C-3).  It is also averred that after getting the car released from Police Station, it was taken to M/s Berkeley Tata Motors, Industrial Area, Phase-2 (an authroised service centre), who prepared estimate of repair.  The Surveyor of the OP inspected the vehicle and go through the estimated loss.  It is further averred that through the car was to be repaired under cashless facility being insured, still the complainant had to pay Rs.1,51,454/- to the repairer (Ann.C-6). Further, the OP did not pay the claim filed by the complainant for said expenses even after issuing of legal notice to it. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

 

2]       The OP has filed the reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case with regard to insurance of the vehicle in question, its being damaged in an accident during currency of the insurance policy, intimation about the loss, appointment of surveyor to assess the loss, who submitted report dated 26.7.2015 (Ann.R-1) and filing of the claim. However, it is submitted that the insured had submitted the DL of driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, has been issued from Nagaland State (Ann.R-3), whereas he is shown the resident of Punjab, therefore, the OP has sought verification of the said DL.  It is also submitted that the insurance company has not received the verification report of DL and the same is pending.  It is further submitted that in the absence of authenticity of driving license, the OP is unable to settle the claim.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions

 

4]       As none appeared on behalf of the OP on the day of arguments i.e. 31.5.2016, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merit under rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the OP.  We have heard the arguments of ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record thoroughly.

 

5]       The Opposite Party has admitted to all the facts with regard to the insurance of the vehicle in question; the lodging of the claim with regard to the damage to the vehicle having occurred due to an accident at Zirakpur as well as the assessment of the claim by its Surveyor amounting to Rs.1,06,600/-, as per the Surveyor Report, dated 14.9.2015.  However, the Opposite Party has raised an objection with regard to the veracity of the driving license of Sh.Pankaj Kumar son of Sh.Subhash Chand, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of happening of the accident.  The Opposite Party claims that the driving license in question needs to be verified from the issuing licensing authority from Nagaland, as there are some discrepancies in the same.  The OP has claimed that an investigator is to be deputed to investigate & submit the report at the earliest and until and unless the details of the driving license in question do not reach its office, the claim of the complainant cannot be settled. Thus claiming no deficiency in service on its part, has sought dismissal of the complaint being pre-mature.

 

6]       On perusal of documents and particularly the surveyor’s report dated 14.9.2015, it is revealed that from Column No.6 Page-1 – “Driver Particulars” that the Driving License of Mr.Pankaj Kumar son of Subhash Chand, who was driving the vehicle at the time when it met with an accident, was checked in original and found in order.  A similar report is also fou8nd mentioned in the Column of Remarks, wherein the Surveyor has categorically mentioned “Driving License found in order & valid for this vehicle.”    However, the office of Opposite Party has been exchanging e-mails between itself since 10.10.2015 till date, as is shown from Page 13 to 18 of the paper book, but has failed to appoint any Investigator to ascertain the genuineness of the driving licence of Sh.Pankaj Kumar son of Subhash Chand.  The OP has failed to explain as to how much more time it would require to appoint an investigator, who would submit his report about the driving license in question. In the absence of any such concrete evidence about the desire of OP to reach an early conclusion about the driving license, the claim of the complainant cannot be kept waiting indefinitely. 

 

7]       For all genuine purposes, the surveyor’s report is believed and is the only necessary document for the settlement of the claim of loss and, if at all, the OP had any doubt, with regard to any matter pertaining to such claim, it was its own sole responsibility to reach a definite conclusion about it, at the earliest.  In the given situation, the accident claim of the complainant which is almost 1½ old, cannot be left at the mercy of the Opposite Party, who prefer to sleep over the matter, rather than dispense with their responsibility in a diligent manner. The act of the Opposite Party in raising unnecessary objection with regard to the genuineness of the driving license and having failed to prove that it was not valid & effective, at the time of occurrence of the accident, amounts to deficiency in service on its part.   

 

8]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To pay an amount of Rs.1,06,600/-, as assessed by the surveyor vide report dated 14.9.2015.

 

[b]      To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum, on amount as mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st May, 2016                                                              Sd/-

                                                              (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.115 OF 2016

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of May, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against the Opposite party.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member