DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 309 of 11-11-2008<br /> Decided on : 26-06-2009 <br /> <br /> Rakesh Kumar aged about 24 years S/o Harbans Lal R/o Backside Arya High School, M L Singla Street, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110 002 through its M.D.<br /> 2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda, through its Senior Divisional Manager.<br /> 3.Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Tinkoni Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Pankaj Soni, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, Advocate, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Herein-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations that he purchased Bollaro Car, Model Code BM4210SCNXFTC2, Engine No. GA71B14151,Chasis No. MAIZN2GAA71815543 from M/s Imperial Motors, G T Road, Bathinda, on 26-02-2007 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,69,000/-. The said vehicle was got financed by him from opposite party No. 3 by taking loan. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got it insured with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide Insurance policy No. 272100/31/2007/15239 w.e.f. 26-02-2007 to 25-02-2008 and paid premium of Rs. 12,693/-. Registration No. PB-03Q-9504 has been alloted to his said vehicle. On 28-08-2007 Sh. Jagjit Singh took the vehicle to Samana Mandi and when he reached near Village Jethuke at about 2.00 p.m. the vehicle met with an accident and extensively damaged. FIR No. 107 dated 28-08-2007 was got registered with the Police Station Rampua. Intimation of accident was given to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 who inspected the spot and got conducted survey of the vehicle through Sh. Mohan Inderjeet, Surveor. The complaint got repaired the said vehicle from M/s. Imperial Motors, G.T. Road, Bathinda, who prepared detailed Invoice No 30 dated 14-03-2008 for Rs. 2,77,288.96. The complainant furnished all the required documents to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and requested them to honour his claim, but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 kept on putting the matter off on one pretext or the other but did not pay his claim. Due to the arbitrary act of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial losses and as such, he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- besides the Insurance claim of Rs. 2,77,288.96 alongwith interest thereon @3% per month w.e.f. the date of bill i.e. 14-03-2008 till payment which the complainant is bearing on account of interest payable by him to opposite party No. 3 for obtaining power loan from opposite party No 3 for making payment to repairers M/s. Imperial Motors, Bathinda. The complainant also seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed joint reply taking legal objections that present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant does not have any cause of action; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct; he is not consumer and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant had failed to produce the original bills and cash memos for the repairs carried out by him as per requirements of the answering opposite parties. Now, the complainant had deposited the bills and cash memo and as per bills and cash memos and survey report, the claim of the complainant passed for Rs. 1,68,830/- which they are ready to pay to the complainant. Remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special costs.<br /> 3. The opposite party No. 3 in his reply stated that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question with the financial help of opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 is only entitled to receive the Insurance amount from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 being financier of vehicle in question. <br /> 4. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 5. The complainant Rakesh Kumar filed his own affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of Challan No. 203 dated 26-02-2007 Ex. C-2, photocopy of Registration Certificate of vehicle Ex. C-3, photocopy of repair bill dated 14-03-208 Ex. C-4, photocopy of Insurance Cover Note Ex. C-5, photocopy of driving licence of Jagjit Singh Ex. C-6, photocopy of F.I.R. No. 107 dated 28-08-2007 Ex. C-7 and photocopy of Insurance policy Ex. C-8.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 produced on record affidavit of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. R-4, photocopy of survey report Ex. R-5 and opposite party No. 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Legal Officer Ex. R-1 and copies of account statements Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-3.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. <br /> 8. It appears from the perusal of the record that the ownership of the vehicle, valid Insurance from 26-02-2007 to 25-02-2008, accident, lodging of FIR etc., is not disputed between the parties. The only dispute is that the complainant has submitted detailed bill for an amount of Rs. 2,87,288.96 of Imperial Motors, G.T Road, Bathinda, which he has spent for the repairs of his vehicle to which the damage was caused on account of accident. The stand taken on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the complainant has failed to produced the original bills and cash memos for the repairs carried out by him as per requirements of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 made repeated requests to the complainant for deposit of the original bills and cash memos. Subsequently, the complainant deposited the bill and cash memos and keeping in view the bills and cash memos and as per survey report, the claim of the complainant has been passed for an amount of Rs. 1,68,830/-. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are liable to pay to the complainant only an amount of Rs. 1,68,830/- whereas the complainant is claiming the amount actually spent by him and paid to Imperial Motors, Bathinda, vide bill Ex. C-4 amounting to Rs. 2,77,288.96. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. R-4 of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. Divisional Manager, who has stated in his affidavit that subsequently complainant deposited the bills and cash memo and as per bills and cash memos deposited by the complainant and as per survey report, the claim of the complainant has been passed for Rs. 1,68,830/-. According to him, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are ready to pay claim of the complainant to this extent and nothing beyond that. He has also stated in his affidavit that the claim is payable to the complainant and not to M/s. Imperial Motors, Bathinda. He has also brought on record a survey report Ex. R-5 of Sh. Mohan Inder Singh, in support of his affidavit that the claim of the complainant is only valid to the extent of Rs. 1,68,830/-.<br /> 9. We have perused the survey report Ex. R-5 viz-a-viz affidavit of Ex. R-4 of Dr. J L Ahuja. The survey report makes no sense as it is not readable. This has also been brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the opposite parties during the course of arguments, but no efforts have been made on the part of the opposite parties to bring on record a readable copy of the survey report. Since the report Ex. R-5, is not readable, therefore this does not support the claim of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 whereas the affidavit Ex. R-4 of Dr. J L Ahuja does not show any reason as to why the claim of the complainant has been restricted by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and passed for Rs. 1,68,830/- only and as to why the rest of the claim of the complainant based on bill produced by him containing details of the repairs carried out by M/s. Imperial Motors was not passed. There is no mention in the affidavit of Dr. J L Ahuja which can justify that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have rightly assessed and passed the claim of the complainant for Rs. 1,68,830/-. No details of deductions on any count has been mentioned in the affidavit Ex. R-4 whereas the survey report Ex. R-5 is of no help to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as it is totally not readable and does not make clear that the claim of the complainant passed for Rs. 1,68,830/- falls within the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The onus is heavily lies on the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 not only to assess the claim of the complainant fairly and within the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but also to satisfy this Forum with regard to not only the terms and conditions but also the rules and regulations on the basis of which the claim of the complainant has been passed for Rs. 1,68,830/- only. This onus has not been fully discharged by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and as such, we are of the considered view that since no reason has been given by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for restricting the claim of the complainant only for Rs. 1,68,830/- without any details thereof, it is not justified. Accordingly this assessment itself does not appear to be fair in any manner and it is not supported by any terms and conditions and rules and regulations of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Hence, we have no other alternative in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case but to finally conclude that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,77,288.96 as per the original bill Ex. C-4 he has submitted, the correctness and genuineness of which has not even been challenged by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 . In the affidavit Ex. R-4 of Dr. J L Ahuja, not a single word has been stated that bill submitted by the complainant Ex. C-4 is in any manner depicting any inadmissible replacement of any part or otherwise any amount claimed in the bill is not admissible to the complainant under the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and rules and regulations of the Insurance Company.<br /> 10. In the result, the complaint is accepted against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs 2,77,288.96 on account of claim lodged by the complainant, for damages caused to his vehicle alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11-11-2008 till realisation besides cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.<br /> The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-06-2009 (George)<br /> President <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />