Complainant Sukhjinder Singh through the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act.) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party (the OP insurer) to pay Rs.6,56,838/-  as insurance claim of the vehicle along with interest  @ 12% per annum and opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and compensation for causing mental and physical agony, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one SCV Cargo (Dost) Lx make Ashok Layland Ltd. Bearing Chasis No.MBIAA22E 80390, Engine No.VEH023244P on 20.11.2014 from opposite party no.3 for Rs.5,15,000/- against valid bill. He has got the vehicle in question insured with opposite party no.1 & 2 on 20.11.2014 commencing from 20.11.2014 to 19.11.2015. He got this vehicle financed from Cholamandlam Investment Finance Co.Ltd. Therefore entry regarding Hire Purchase is also made in the Registration Certificate and Insurance Cover Note. The owner of the vehicle had cleared all the money transactions with the Chola Mandlam and got No Objection Certificate from Chola Mandlam. On 24.12.2014 at about 12:30 nigh, one Truck bearing No.PB-30H-9113 fully loaded with bricks, having no backside  lights/indicator, was going from Dhariwal side to Gurdaspur and reached near a over bridge Dhariwal then one car JK-02-B-B5611 make Maruti Indica struck against the backside of said truck due to foggy night due to the accident the driver of said car died on the spot. After some time, the vehicle in question also struck against the backside of said truck due to dense foggy night. This vehicle in question was being driven by Mangal Singh son of Sukhjinder Singh complainant and he died on the spot. The FIR bearing No.186 dated 25.12.2014 under section 304-A/337/427/279 IPC was registered against the driver of Truck namely Tarsem Sigh son of Sadha Singh. He has next pleaded that due to accident, the vehicle in question was badly damaged as such he shifted the vehicle to Kosmo Autosales for repair immediately. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 were also informed regarding the accident and at the asking of opposite parties no.1 and 2 the damaged vehicle was shifted at opposite party no.3. The photographs of the damaged vehicle were also taken by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and proceedings for getting insurance claim were duly started. He also supplied valid driving license bearing No.PB-0620060016382 dated 10.4.2006 and valid upto 09.04.2006 of his son Mangal Singh (deceased). The verification report from the office of  District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur was also supplied to opposite parties no.1 and 2. The vehicle was almost completely damaged in the accident. It is duly got repaired by opposite party no.3 under the supervision of complainant, opposite parties no.1 & 2 and even with the knowledge of finance company Cholamandlam Amritsar. The opposite party no.3 got the vehicle repaired and issued estimate bill of Rs.6,56,838/- including labour amount Rs.60,700/-. He has completed all the formalities in order to get insurance claim for the damaged vehicle and estimate of repair including all charges supplied by opposite party no.3 was also supplied to the opposite parties no.1 & 2 well in time but they have not taken any positive steps to decide the claim of insured vehicle. He has suffered huge loss and damage due to untimely death of his son in the accident and his insured vehicle has also been damaged completely. He has been suffering mental and physical agony due to negative approach of opposite parties no.1 & 2. He has approached the opposite party no.1 & 2 repeatedly but neither the opposite parties no.1 & 2 have decided the claim of insured vehicle nor they have paid any amount of compensation and damage to vehicle. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 have also not informed him as to whether claim has been allowed or repudiated or on which ground the claim has not been paid to him. The act and conduct of the opposite party no.1 & 2 is altogether illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to be penalized. Hence this complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 insurers appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is hopelessly Pre-mature. The complainant neither lodged his claim with the opposite party nor gave any information regarding alleged accident and alleged loss to his vehicle to the insurance company. The insurance company never appointed any Surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle in question and the complainant never completed any formalities under the terms and conditions of the policy by providing all the required documents for lodging the claim, then the question of payment of claim does not arise. Hence, due to non-lodging the claim alongwith the required documents by the complainant with the insurance company, the insurance company is not in a position to settle the claim under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the present claim of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It was next submitted that the vehicle in question SCV Cargo (Dost) LX make Ashoka Layland Ltd. Bearing Chasis no.MBIAA22E 80390, Engine No.VEH023244P, Temporary registration no.PB-02-BU-7401 and Permanent Registration no.PB-02-TC-567 was not involved in the alleged accident and it never damaged in the alleged accident. After the perusal of the alleged FIR no.186 dated 25.12.2014, it reveals that the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident and the alleged driver Mangal Singh was not driving the vehicle in question. As per the alleged FIR, the alleged driver Mangal Singh was driving the Bollero Car no.PB-02-TC-567 at the time of alleged accident and as per the said FIR, the said Mangal Singh died at the spot, when he was driving the Bollero Car and his Bollero Car was struck with the Truck no.PB-30-H-9113. Hence it clears that the complainant made up the concocted story in his complainant just to get the false claim, which is entirely contradictory with the version of FIR. It is crystal clear that the Truck in question was not involved in the alleged accident, the complainant willfully put up the said Truck in the alleged accident just to get the false claim from the insurance company. Hence, the present claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this score only.  On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint prayed. 

4.           Summon issued to the opposite party o.3 had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.10.2016.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and of  Kulwinder Kaur wife of Mangal Singh Ex.CW2/A alongwith other documents exhibited as: Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence;

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Karam Singh Sr. Divisional Manager. Ex.OP1,2/1 along with the other documents exhibited as: Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/6 and closed the evidence.

7.    We have carefully examined all the documents/ evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute has prompted at the OP insurers’ alleged non-settlement of the complainant’s accidental total-loss insurance claim alleging it to be ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the titled insurers. The complainant has also produced his evidentiary documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C9) but has somehow failed to produce any evidence of the insurance-claim as alleged to have been filed with the OP insurers who have straightaway denied having been in receipt of any such insurance claim and/or even any information/ intimation of the insured Truck’s alleged accident etc and have stated the present complaint to be pre-mature. However, the OP insurers have also alleged false (incorrect) reporting of the insured Truck Accident that somehow has been of little or no significance at this stage.   

8.       We, thus find that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to file the total-loss accident-claim along with the requisitioned information/ documents with the OP insurers within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and who in turn shall decide and convey the ‘fate’ of the so-filed claim to him within a further period of 30 days of the receipt of the same. The parties shall bear their own costs here for the above discussed obvious reason(s).  

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                               President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 06, 2017.                                                                          Member

*MK*