Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/157

Amarjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance Genaral Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sarabjit Singh Virk

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

Amarjit Kaur Vs. The Reliance GIC

 

13.8.2015:Present: Sh.Sarabjit Singh Virk, counsel for the complainant

                   ORDER

1. It is alleged by the complainants that they had brought complaint No.CC/11/791 of 16.12.2011 titled as Amarjit Kaur & Ors. Vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and others and the same was decided by the Forum on  19.12.2012 with the observations: “Consequently, we find that it is for the Ops to settle the claim of complainants taking into account the other parameters including the depreciation of the value etc. as per the policy terms and conditions Ex.R4 and accordingly we accept the complaints and give a direction to the Ops to settle the claim of the complainants in the two complaints within 40 days on receipt of the certified copy of the order being guided by the observations made by the Forum regarding the requirement of the documents made by them vide their letter dated 28.10.2013,Ex.R3 and the Ops shall disburse the claim to the complainants after getting forms No.28,29 and 30(supra).In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, each complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-.”
2. Despite the lapse of a period of three months after the passing of the said order, the Ops having not settled their claim, the complainants brought the application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) but the proceedings of the same were adjourned sine die on 30.5.2013 on account of the respondents in the petition having preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in which the order of stay was granted. The appeal was dismissed on 5.12.2013.
3. The Ops having not cared to settle the claim, the complainants filed an application for the restoration of the contempt petition and accordingly the same was restored. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Ops deposited a cheque in a sum of Rs.seven lac towards the insurance claim regarding the truck No.PB-23F-2071, which was received by the complainants under protest on 29.1.2015.The Ops had deposited the said amount after a lapse of more than three years and without having paid any interest, damages and costs.
4. It is also alleged that the premium of insurance in respect of driver of the vehicle had also been received by the Ops while issuing the insurance policy No.2010792334003027 regarding vehicle No.PB-23F-2071 and that the driver Balbir Singh s/o Ramji Dass had been missing alongwith truck and the complainants reserve their right to file the claim in respect of the death of the driver, if he remains unheard of for seven years. Due to the uncalled for litigation caused by the Ops, the complainants suffered harassment, damages and mental agony on account of the Ops having caused a delay of three years   in paying the claim. The Ops are liable to pay interest of Rs.2,65,000/- @12% upon the amount of Rs.seven lac deposited by the Ops from the date of the application of claim .They are also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10lac on account of the damages, harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainants. They are further liable to pay a sum of Rs.1lacs towards litigation charges and the amount of Rs.5000/- of the costs awarded by the Forum vide order dated 19.12.2012. Hence the complaint.
5. Here, it may be noted that the complainants had brought complaint No.CC/11/791 of 16.12.2011 alleging that Sh.Tarvinder Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh resident of village & Post Office Mahadian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, of whom the complainant Smt.Amarjit Kaur is the wife and complainants No.2 to 6 are the son and daughters, was the owner of trucks bearing registration Nos.PB-23E-2071 and  PB -23F-2071, who got truck No.PB-23-E-2071 insured with the Ops vide policy No.2010792334003187 and cover note No.109001043734 for the period 8.2.2010 to 7.2.2011 and truck No.PB-23F-2071 vide policy No.2010792334003027 and cover note No.109001043733 for the period from 14.1.2010 to 13.1.2011 respectively. As per the police report said  Tarvinder Singh had been murdered by the miscreants after having looted the trucks and goods in Assam. The complainants being the legal heirs of Tarvinder Singh had stepped into his shoes and have got a right to claim the compensation under the Act. Both the trucks had the national permits for being plied and for carrying goods through out India.Tuck No.PB-23E-2071 was being driven by its owner  Sh.Tarvinder Singh while truck No.PB-23F-2071 was being driven by Balbir Singh s/o Ramji Dass resident of Railway Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.   Both the trucks were loaded with the coal from M/s Kang Roadways Transport Lalmati Beltola 13No.Gali,Guhati-29 on 19.10.2010 and the same had proceeded for Himachal Pradesh on 20.10.2010 driven by Tarvinder Singh and Balbir Singh, respectively but said trucks never reached the destination. On enquiry made by the relatives, it was learnt that the trucks loaded with the coal were stolen by the miscreants at Jogi Ghopa (Assam) and Tarvinder Singh and Balbir Singh were not traceable. The approximate value of the truck as also of the coal was Rs.28lacs. Ravinder Singh,elder brother of Tarvinder Singh lodged the complaint with P.S. STF District Kamrup, Assam vide FIR no.3 dated 18.11.2010 under Section 379 IPC.
6. It was further averred that the complainant Smt.Amarjit Kaur had registered the claim vide claim intimation No.2111050092 dated 23.3.2011 in respect of truck No.PB-23E-2071 and PB-23F-2071 respectively with the Ops and also sent the application dated 24.3.2011 to their office alongwith relevant documents. The Ops having failed to settle the claim, the complainant brought the two complaints i.e. complaint No.CC/11/790 of 16.12.2011 and complaint No.CC/11/791 of 16.12.2011 in respect of the two trucks before this Forum. The Ops appeared and contested the claim in the two complaints having controverted the allegations made in the complaint going against them. It was the plea taken up by them that vide letter dated 28.10.2011, the complainants were asked  to make a compliance of requirement of the letter. Since the letter was not complied with by the complainants their claim was closed as ‘no claim’ without having commented anything on the merits of the complaint and that the claim could not be processed further in the absence of the documents. Byvirture of our order dated 19.12.2012, the same were disposed of in terms of the observations noted above in para no.1.
7. In the Miscellaneous application No.20/2013 brought by the present complainants under Section 27 of the Act, the Ops appeared and submitted on 3.6.2014 that as per the order of the Forum the claim was being settled in respect of which the respondents had sent the letter dated 28.5.2014 to the applicants, copy of which was placed on file.
8. As per the letter dated 28.5.2014, the respondents demanded 18 documents from the applicants and vide our order dated 9.6.2014, the requirement of the same was discussed with reference to our order dated 19.12.2011 but still applicant Ms.Beant Kaur wanted to furnish the documents and on the submission of the documents and performance of the other formalities  by the applicants, the respondents made the payment of Rs.seven lacs vide cheque no.405448 dated 16.1.2015 drawn in favor of the applicant Smt.Amarjit Kaur, which was accepted by the counsel for the applicants under protest who suffered the statement having withdrawn the application and vide our order dated 29.1.2015, the same was filed, the same having become infractuous.
9. Now byvirtue of the present complaint, the complainants seek the interest on account of delayed payment, compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony , costs of the litigation and the costs imposed vide order dated 19.12.2012.The complainants can not be allowed to file a fresh complaint for getting those reliefs because the same could be claimed by the complainants in the application brought by them under Section 27 of the Act, in case they were not satisfied with the settlement of their claim made by the respondents. It is important to note that the complainants have not challenged the settlement of their claim in a sum of Rs.seven lacs.Had any application been moved by the present complainants in the proceedings of the application brought by them under Section 27 of the Act for directing the respondents(Ops) to make the payment of the interest and compensation, one or the other order must have been passed by the Forum taking into account the facts and circumstances but now we can not reopen the proceedings of the application. The complainants have not got any fresh cause of action seeking the aforesaid reliefs through the independent complaint now brought by them .In case the complainants have not recovered the costs of Rs.5000/- imposed vide our order dated 19.12.2012, they can still recover the same by filing the application under Section 25 of the Act in this regard. The application brought by the complainants under Section 27 of the Act was filed on account of statement suffered by the applicant Ms.Beant Kaur as also the counsel for the applicants that they withdraw the contempt petition. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable because for the same relief, the Ops can not be vexed twice. The complaint is rejected accordingly. The copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs. The file of the miscellaneous application No.20/2013 decided on 29.1.2015 be consigned to the record room.

File be consigned to the record room.

 

 

Member               Member               President