| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 207 of 06-08-2019 Decided on : 08-05-2024 Gobind Singh aged about 52 years S/o Ranjit Singh R/o Village Jodhpur Pakhar, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, 7-A, Mansa Road, Civil Lines, Bathinda, through its Senior Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Smt. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.H.S Khosa, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh.J.D Nayyar, Advocate. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Gobind Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 (Now, U/s 35) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now, Commission) against United India Insurance Company Limited (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Ford Fego car baring registration No.PB-03AP-3169 bearing engine No.BE-33296 and chassis No.BE33296. It was insured with opposite party vide policy bearing No.23027813958 for the period from 22.9.2016 to midnight 21.9.2017 for IDV of Rs.3,00,000/- and total Rs.8524/- was paid to opposite party on 22.9.2016 vide receipt No.10220040116105243181 dated 22.9.2016, but no terms and conditions were supplied to him. It is alleged that the insured vehicle was stolen by some unknown person as the son of the complainant namely Manpreet Singh visited at Bathinda on 20.8.2017 and in this regard FIR No.81 dated 20.08.2017 U/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S Cantt, Bathinda by Manpreet Singh and after lodging the FIR, opposite party was intimated immediately without any delay. All the formailities for the claim were also fulfilled by the complainanat as per the direction of opposite party, but unfortunately, the complainant had not receipt of the information that is given to opposite party. Opposite party gave the assurance to the complainant that his claim will be settled within stipulated period, but it did not clear his claim. It is further alleged that the complainant has been visiting to the office of opposite party time and again with the request to pay the insured sum, but it initially assured to pay the insured sum, but it failed to do so and later on, it flatly refused to accede his request. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to pay the insured sum alongwith interest and compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by him and litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant does not have any cause-of-action to file the complaint. This Forum does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against opposite party and has unnecessarily harassed opposite party by dragging it into uncalled for litigation. As such, the complaint deserves dismissal with special costs to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as provided U/s 26 of 'Act'. The complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. He is not a 'consumor' of opposite party as defined under 'Act' and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The actual facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the insurance policy from opposite party. At the time of insurance alongwith copy of policy, the complainant had been supplied with all its the terms and conditions. The claim, if any, was payable subject to rules and regulations and terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant never informed opposite party with regard to any such theft nor any claim had ever been lodged by him till date. It is only after receiving the notice of the complaint that opposite party came to know regarding the alleged loss. He has intentionally concocted a false story regarding having informed opposite party regarding the alleged theft. As such, under these circumstances, opposite party are not liable to make any payment to the complainant due to non-filing of the claim and due to non-intimation to opposite party. It is violation of terms and conditions or rules and regulations of the policy. On merits, opposite party has reiterated its version as taken in the preliminary objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 6.7.2019, (Ex.C3) and documents, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 26.11.2019 (Ex.OP1/1) and documents, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Controversy lies in very narrow compass. The version of opposite party is that the complainant has not lodged the claim regarding the theft of his insured vehicle till date, rather he has directly filed the complaint and opposite party reserve its right to decide the claim as and when the complainant lodged the claim. The complainant has filed this complaint in the year 2019, but during the pendency of complaint, opposite party despite receipt of documents alongwith copy of complaint failed to process the claim till date. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is disposed off with the directions to opposite party to process and settle the claim of the complainant next within 45 days from receiving the claim form alongwith documents from the complainant. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite party will be liable to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 08-05-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
