Punjab

Sangrur

CC/627/2014

Bansal Pipe Udyog - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    627

                                                Instituted on:      20.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       28.04.2015

 

Bansal Pipe Udyog, Khadial Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur Proprietor Shallu Bansal wife of Ramesh Kumar, resident of Hanjra Marg, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Regional Manager.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Motor Dealer Marketing Office, Mata Rani Road, Opposite Municipal Corporation, Car Parking, Ludhiana through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Shallu Bansal proprietor of M/s. Bansal Pipe Udyog,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OPs by getting insured his Verna car model 2010 having registration number PB-44-B-8877 from the OPs vide policy number 200801/31/12/01/00002154 for the period from 23.10.2012 to 22.12.2013 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.21,175/- and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.8,27,900/-.   It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen by Sachin Sharma on 20.4.2013, of which FIR number 72 dated 21.4.2013 was lodged in the P.S. City Sunam and the accused Sachin Sharma is facing trial before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sunam.  It is further averred that the car in question was found on 22.4.2013 from Naviganj (UP) in accidental condition and the vehicle was brought from UP in totally damaged condition.  It is further averred that since the matter was under investigation with the police, so the car remained under the custody of the police and the custody of the car was given to the complainant only in the month of June, 2013. It is further averred that after taking the spurdari from the court, the complainant informed the OPs, who deputed the surveyor and the requisite documents were supplied to the OPs. It is further averred that the OPs credited Rs.2,30,000/- in the account of the complainant and taken back Rs.30,000/- with the promise to return the same after handing over the RC of the vehicle duly transferred in the name of the company.  It is further averred that the remaining amount of Rs.6,00,000/- plus Rs.15,000/- has not been paid despite repeated visits of the complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it is admitted that the complainant got insured his car in question with the OP number 2 for the period from 23.10.2012 to 22.10.2013 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.8,27,900/-. It is further averred that after receiving the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle, the OP company immediately appointed Shri Chander Shekhar Chauhan, surveyor and loss assessor. Thereafter the OP also appointed M/s. Royal Associates for investigation of the claim, who submitted its report dated 25.4.2014. It is further stated that as per the report, the claim is not payable as the car in question was stolen by known person of the insured by taking original keys from his house, as such, there is no liability of the company.  It is further stated that as per the final report of Shri Chander Shekhar, he assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.5,45,900/- on cash loss under net of salvage value basis with R.C and the complainant also gave his consent to accept Rs.5,45,900/- in full and final settlement subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.   It is denied that the car in question was found in accidental condition from Naviganj. It has been  denied that the representative of the OPs credited Rs.2,30,000/- on account of price of the salvage of the car and Rs.30,000/- was taken back by him from the complainant.   It is further in the reply of the OP that the file of the complainant is still pending and the complaint is premature as no decision has been taken by the company. The other allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of RC, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of letter, Ex.C-7 copy of reply, Ex.C-8 copy of order dated 27.8.2013, Ex.C-9 copy of application of sapurdari, Ex.C-10 copy of challan/report under section 173, Ex.C-11 coy of receipt, Ex.C-12 copy of FIR, Ex.C-13 copy of bank statement,  Ex.C-14 copy of application dated 26.4.2013, Ex.C-15 copy of bank statement and Ex.C-16 is affidavit of complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPS/1 copy of policy, Ex.OPS/2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OPS/3 copy of status report, Ex.OPS/4 copy of investigation report, Ex.OPS/5 copy of surveyor report, Ex.OPS/6 copy of consent letter, Ex.OPS/7 copy of affidavit, Ex.OPS/8 copy of claim form, Ex.OPS/9 copy of order dated 25.7.2013, Ex.OPS/10 to Ex.OPS/11 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

               

5.             In the present case it is not in dispute that the complainant got insured his car in question from the Ops for Rs.8,27,900/- under policy number 200801/31/12/01/00002154 for the period from 23.10.2012 to 22.10.2013.  It is further not in dispute that the car in question was stolen by Shri Sachin Sharma on 20.4.2013 of which FIR number 72 dated 21.4.2013 was registered in P.S. City Sunam.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was found on 22.4.2013 in damaged condition from Naviganj (UP) from where the same was brought at Sunam after paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- as transportation charges to the transporter.

 

6.             A bare perusal of para number 3(f) of the complaint clearly reveals that the OPs have already paid an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- to the complainant as admitted by the complainant himself.  The complainant has claimed the remaining amount of Rs.6,15,000/- from the OPs in the complaint. But, on the other hand, the stand of the OPs in their written reply is that the claim was settled at Rs.5,45,900/- in full and final settlement which was also accepted by the complainant itself by filing the sworn affidavit.  But, a bare perusal of the written reply clearly shows that till now the file of the complainant is still pending and the OPs have not decided the claim of the complainant and the complaint is premature.  Further, the complainant has not produced on record any repudiation letter issued by the Ops to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, we find that since the Ops have not decided the claim of the complainant, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to settle the claim of the complainant and intimate its decision to the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to decide the claim of the complainant within a period of 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order and intimate the decision to the complainant by registered post. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  It is made clear that if the complainant remains unsatisfied from the decision of the opposite parties, then the complainant is at liberty to approach this Forum again, if he so desired.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 28, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member