DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/340 of 15.12.2014

                                      Decided on:        9.6.2015

Jaswant Singh son of Sh.Ranjit Singh, resident of village Jarikpur, Post Office Chapper, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab)        

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office: Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   …………….Op

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

Present:

For the complainant:      D.S.Behtal, Advocate

For  Op:                           Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate                  

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had got his car make Maruti Esteem bearing registration No.PB-10-U-4008, insured with the Op vide policy/cover note No.637103 for the period 6.5.2006 to 5.5.2007.
2. On the intervening night of 9/10-3-2007,Rajwinder Singh son of the complainant alongwith his friends had been coming  in his said car from Landra and when the car, while being driven by his son Rajwinder Singh reached near village Gajipur Tehsil, Rajpura at about 1.30/2.00AM on 10.3.2007 that the same met with an accident because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck make Tata 407 bearing registration No.HR-64-1765, which had come from the side of Patiala. In the accident, the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged and the occupants sustained grievous injuries. FIR No.41 dated 10.3.2007 under Section 279,427,337,338 IPC was lodged with P.S.Sadar, Rajpura regarding the said accident. The Intimation regarding the accident was also given by the complainant immediately to the Op, who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and who on investigation found that the loss to the vehicle was genuine and the surveyor assured the complainant to get the claim passed and who lateron submitted his report with the Op.
3. It is further averred by the Op that he had got the estimate, regarding the damaged caused to the vehicle, prepared  from Noor Motors, Rajpura, District Patiala, who assessed the same at Rs.3lac with service tax @12.36%.The complainant had given the said estimate to the surveyor during the course of the investigation.
4. It is further averred by the complainant that he had filed the claim regarding the loss with the Op alongwith relevant documents having raised a claim of Rs.3,10,000/- but the Op failed to take any action, who even failed to issue any letter to the complainant requiring him to perform any legal formalities nor the Op contacted the complainant. Copy of the claim form is produced alongwith the complaint as Annexure C14.
5. It is further averred by the complainant that the claim was filed by him with the Op in the year 2007 but despite the passing of a period of seven years, the complainant was not informed as to whether the claim had been under process or the same was repudiated and the same amounted to a deficiency in service, which resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant.
6. It is further averred by the complainant that he filed an application through his counsel under the RTI Act on 20.8.2014 followed by the reminder dated 12.9.2014 ,so as to furnish the requisite information. The Op rather replied the application on 19.9.2014 and disclosed that the information could not be supplied as the same pertained to third party. At this the complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 25.9.2014 through his counsel but to no effect.
7. Thereafter, the complainant in pursuance of the reply dated 19.9.2014 himself applied under the RTI  to the Op to seek the information with regard to the accident followed by a reminder but the Op failed to furnish the information. Consequently the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.3,10,000/- with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. the date of accident, to pay him Rs.75000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.10,000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
8. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted by the Op that car bearing No.PB 10-U 4008 was insured with the Op for the period 6.5.2006 to 5.5.2007 for the sum insured of Rs.30000/- only in the name of the complainant. It is however, denied that the said car had met with an accident on 10.3.2007 near village Gajipur Tehsil Rajpura having involved with truck No.HR-64-1765 and in which the same was damaged. The Op got no information regarding the alleged accident and no claim was ever lodged with it. The insured was bound to intimate the loss and to lodge the claim immediately after the accident as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The insured, till the date of the filing of the written version, failed to inform about the loss and to lodge the claim. It is denied by the Op that on receipt of the intimation of the loss any surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss and investigated the matter. The Op has denied all other allegations going against it and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of his claim, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C26 and his counsel closed his evidence.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Smt.Uma Dhir, Deputy Manager of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
11. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
12. The only plea taken up by the Op to rebut the claim of the complainant is that the complainant had never given any intimation regarding the accident and lodged the claim with the Op. The complainant has produced in evidence Ex.C12, the copy of FIR No.41 dated 10.7.2007, lodged under Sections, 279,427,337,338 Cr P.C. with P.S.Sadar, Rajpura recorded on the statement of Rajwinder Singh, Ex.C13, the copy of the estimate regarding the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant obtained from Noor Motors, Patiala Road, Rajpura dated 9.4.2007, Ex.C14, copy of the Motor Accident Claim form dated 9.4.2007 purportedly submitted by the complainant with the Op,Ex.C15, the copy of the application moved by Sh.Dalbir Singh under the RTI Act before the PIO of the United India Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office, Patiala, Ex.C17, copy of the reminder dated 12.9.2014 sent by the applicant on  Ex.C15 to the PIO of the United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Divisonal Office, Patiala, Ex.C18, the letter dated 19.9.2014, got by Sh.D.S.Behgal from United India Insurance Co.Ltd. with reference to his RTI application No.69 dated 22.8.2014, whereby he was informed that the information did not pertain to him and being a third party information, the same was exempt under Section 8(1)d and (j) r/w Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 and therefore, the same could not be provided to him, Ex.C19, copy of the legal notice dated 25.9.2014, got sent by the complainant through his counsel to the Op, Ex.C21, copy of the application moved by the complainant before the PIO of the United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Patiala under the RTI Act, Ex.C23, copy of the reminder of the said application dated 27.11.2014 and Ex.C26, the copy of the claim intimation register for motor OD for the period 1.3.2007 to 31.5.2007, got produced by the complainant from the Op having moved an application in this regard.
13. It was submitted by Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the Op that Ex.C14, the photo copy of the Motor Accident Claim form purported to have been submitted by the complainant with the Op on 9.4.2007 does not carry any authenticity because the same does not bear  any endorsement of the office of the Op regarding the receipt of the same and it was not difficult for the complainant to have prepared such an application by obtaining a proforma from the office of the Op or from any branch of the Op, which can be supplied to any person on demand.
14. It was also submitted by Sh.Anand, that on a direction given by the Forum on the application filed by the complainant, the Op produced the copy of the register for the year 2007,Ex.C26, and no claim is shown to have been lodged by the complainant with the Op on 9.4.2007.
15. It was also submitted by Sh.Anand that it seems most un natural on the part of the complainant that the complainant having lodged the claim with the Op on 9.4.2007, he had not pursued the same by way of issuing a reminder or filing application in person to know the status of the claim and that he had abruptly woken from the slumber after a lapse of more than seven years when he got the Op served with the legal notice Ex.C19 dated 25.9.2014, in which also it is no where averred that the complainant had ever tried to pursue his claim by issuing the reminder or submitting the application and it is merely averred in para no.8 of the notice : “That the claim was filed in the year 2007, but till today i.e.in seven years, neither the company paid any amount nor intimated that whether the claim is repudiated or under process. As such a long time taken by you for the settlement of claim is a clear cut deficiency on your part and it is a amount of harassment, mental agony to our client, for which our client reserves his right to claim compensation”. The said  allegations, it was submitted, boom rang in as much as it was expected of the complainant to write the letters in the shape of the reminders to the Op to know the reason as to why his claim could not be settled within a reasonable  time of 4-5 months after the filing of the same and why the delay was being caused, going to show that the complainant had never filed any claim with the Op and he has straightway come to the Forum under the false hope that the Forum will settle his claim, which is not possible. It was also submitted by Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the Op that it being a frivolous case the Forum may impose special costs to compensate the party opposite who has been made to contest the claim of the complainant to its harassment.
16. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Behgal, the learned counsel for the complainant that the vehicle of the complainant was involved in the accident as would appear from the copy of FIR, Ex.C12 and the photographs Exs.C3 to C11 and therefore, it cannot be said that he would not have given the intimation to the Op and filed the claim. The complainant is the retired Addl. Registrar of the Punjabi University, Patiala and therefore, he could not sit idle in raising the claim.
17. We have considered the submissions. Apparently the Motor Accident Claim  form ( photo copy Ex.C14) dated 9.4.2007 does not bear any endorsement made by the office of the Op regarding the receipt of the same. It was not difficult for the complainant to have prepared Motor Accident Claim form,Ex.C14 by way of getting the form from the Op. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that on having given a intimation regarding the accident to the Op a surveyor was appointed by the Op who assessed the loss having investigated the matter but surprisingly the complainant has not been able to disclose the name of the surveyor or produce any copy of the survey report. In case the Op had appointed a surveyor, who investigated the matter and who found that the accident and loss of the vehicle were genuine as alleged in para no.6 of the complaint, it was expected of the complainant to have pursued the matter by approaching the Op within a reasonable time of 3-4 months of the lodging of the claim and not that he would remain sitting idle for a period of more than seven years when he, for the first time got the Op served with the legal notice Ex.C19 dated  25.9.2014.Even in Ex.C19, nothing is alleged that the complainant had ever issued any letter to the Op to know the reasons for the non settlement of his claim. The complainant is the retired Additional Registrar of the Punjabi University and therefore, it was not expected of him to have sit idle after the filing of the claim. Any prudent person would certainly follow the claim by writing one or the other letter to the Op. The very fact that the complainant remained silent for a period of more than seven year , goes a long way to show the falsity of the allegations made in the complaint that he had lodged the claim with the Op vide Motor Accident Claim form Ex.C14 dated 9.4.2007. The complainant was expected to obtain a copy of the Motor Accident Claim form from the office of the Op after the same was received with an endorsement made thereon by the concerned official and not that he would maintain a photo copy of the Motor Accident Claim form, which had to be submitted by him with the Op. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to disbelieve the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant had never lodged the claim with it and he has straightway approached the Forum under the false hope that his claim will be settled by the Forum. The complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the Op. We do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.
18.  

Dated: 9.6.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President