DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/17
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
United India Ins.Co. United India Insurance Coi.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. A.K.SHARMA 2. SUDHA SHARMA
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto has been filed by Ravi Kumar -2- complainant against United India Insurance Company Ltd. Syal Home, Jalandhar another opposite parties seeking direction against opposite parties for payment to the extent of Rs.1,16,629/- with interest for total loss of the insured vehicle in accident on account deficiency in its service alongwith monetary compensation. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the complaint lie in narrow compass. It is averred that the complainant is registered owner of Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No. PB 09-D-4784, Chassis No. 576449 and Engine No. 143989 and he insured the same with opposite party No.1 vide comprehensive insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, through Cover Note No. 670403 dated 05.04.2006 on payment of Rs.6753/- as premium. The insurance policy was in operation for the period from 7.4.2006 to 6.4.2006 covering the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. It is further averred that unfortunately his Maruti Zen Car met with an accident on 26.4.2006 at G.T.Road, near Dhilwan with a tractor trolley and its intimation was duly given to the insurance company/opposite parties who appointed surveyor to assess the loss/damage to his car. The said car was brought to desired workshop i.e. Raga Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road Pragpur, Jalandhar, for repair and the surveyor of respondent No. 2 visited personally and inspected the car and took photographs. Estimated cost of the repair of the car of the complainant was more than Rs.1,00,000/- and that the respondent company assured to pay the compensation but no information was given by the Insurance Company despite his repeated requests and visits to the office of the Insurance Company. More than 2½ months passed but no action was taken by the opposite party as a -3- result of which he served a legal notice upon the respondents calling them to make the payment regarding the loss occurred to the insured vehicle but in vain. Consequently, non-action on the part of the opposite parties in paying the damages to him for the justifiable cause despite the insurance of the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service for which he is entitled to the relief as claimed in the complaint. 2. The opposite parties appeared and controverted the allegations and resisted the claim of the complainant. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that the complicated questions of facts have been raised and the Consumer Forum having limited jurisdictions has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and that the present complaint is collusive with the connivance of unscrupulous officials of the Insurance Company to defraud the insurance on the basis of story of fabricated accident with evil designs. On merits, the factum of the insurance of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No. PB 09-D-4784, Chassis No. 576449 and Engine No. 143989 vide insurance cover Note Ex.C2 dated 5.4.2006 for the insurance period from 7.4.2006 to 6.4.2007 is not disputed. However the insurance company has vehemently denied that any vehicular accident had ever taken place of the Maruti Zen Car of the complainant on the alleged date on 26.4.2006. In fact the car of the complainant met with an accident in the month of March, 2006 but as the said car was not insured on that day, so he dumped the car in a Dera and did not report the matter to the concerned police station or lodged any -4- report or the complaint regarding the said accident. He, however, manipulated with the officials of the opposite party to get the said car insured on 7.4.2006 without either not disclosing the factum of accident to the officials or in collusion with each other with ulterior motive. Had the accident taken place on 26.4.2006, the inspection of the vehicle on 9.5.2006 by Shri Vikas Sikka Surveyor would not have revealed the vehicle in such a badly rusted condition as it was clear from the photographs. Surprisingly no DDR or FIR was lodged by the complainant either on the date of accident or immediately thereafter. Merely because the surveyor was appointed to assess the loss of vehicle on receipt of information regarding the accident to insured vehicle without suspecting any evil design perse does not establish the claim of the complainant. Photographs of the car and report of the surveyor clearly shows that the accident and loss was caused much prior to the obtaining of insurance policy i.e. on 5.4.2006. The receipt of the legal notice from the complainant is not disputed, but as the matter was under investigation so the same was not replied. Therefore, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant. 3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1, cover note Ex.C2, Bill of Raga Motors Ex.C3, Registration Copy Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5 another affidavit of the complainant Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7and closed the evidence. 4. The counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri B.S. Arora, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OPA -5- alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed the evidence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that inaction on the part of the insurance company for non-payment of the insurance claim of Rs.1,80,000/- in respect of the damaged insured Maruti Zen Car in the accident without any plausible reason amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party/insurance company failed to establish the allegation of connivance and collusion of the complainant with the officials of the insurance insurance company about its plea of fabricated accident. On the other hand, it has been counter argued by the counsel for the opposite party that though no direct evidence of fraud or the collusion was adduced but the circumstances deducible from the peculiar facts of the case, smack of collusion of the complainant with the unscrupulous agent of the insurance company to lay a false insurance claim in respect of the damaged vehicle in a fake accident which had never taken place on 26.4.2006 as alleged by the complainant. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. Th insurance of the Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No. PB 09-D-4784, Chassis No. 576449 and Engine No. 143989 owned by the complainant vide registration Certificate Ex.C4 is not disputed. The insurance valid for the period 7.4.2006 to 6.4.2007 as evidenced by the cover note Ex.C2 dated 5.4.2006 is not disputed. However the Insurance Company has -6 vehemently denied that the accident of Maruti Zen Car had taken place on 26.4.2006 as alleged by the complainant with a Tractor Trolley at G.T. Road, near Dhilwan. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean conduct. He has not stated any thing in his affidavit Ex.C5 as to when the intimation of the alleged accident of his insured vehicle was sent to Insurance Company. However he stated that he had deposited the said vehicle with the repairer company i.e. Raga Motors to get his car repaired but not by specific and that the said Raga Motors gave an estimate costs for the repair of the said vehicle vide bill dated 21.9.2006 Ex.C3. There is only one legal notice Ex.C5 dated 11.7.2006 in which it is for the first time, the complainant expressed his grouse that though 2½ months lapsed since the accident, his vehicle is lying with Raga Motors in open space and due to this fact his vehicle is deteriorating day by day and suffering the loss. Surprisingly the mysterious silence in not communicating about the alleged accident to the insurance company and in action on his part not to lodge the FIR or a criminal complaint against the owner of offending vehicle up till now which caused the immense damage to his vehicle without plausible reason certainly re-inforces the suspicion about the insurance claim of the complainant except only serving of the legal notice dated 11.7.2007. Again the cover note of the insurance vehicle Ex.C2 bears the date 5.4.2006 at 4 P..M. but the commencement of the insurance was made effective from 7.4.2006 to 6.4.2007 without any plausible cause which is also indicative of the malafide conduct of the insurance agent. There is not even an iota of evidence of the accident produced by the complainant that the accident of Maruti Zen Car -7- had taken place on 26.4.2006 and the formidable evidence has to be produced by the complainant in the event of challenge to its genuineness by the insurance company. Nevertheless the insurance company has attempted to prove about the fabricated story of the alleged accident on 26.4.2006 vide investigation report Ex.R1. Though this report may be adversely commented upon as a partisan report in favour of the insurance company, we cannot be impervious to the surveyor report of Vikas Sikka Ex.R2 dated 9.5.2006 which revealed that the damage sustained by the vehicle as observed by him were badly in rusted condition which is apparent in the photographs enclosed there with. This report too strengthens the plea of the insurance company that the Maruti Zen Car of the complainant was not involved in the accident on the alleged date of 26.4.2006. 7. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon a case reported as RAVI INDER SINGH BHALLA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED II(1999) CPJ 655 to cover up the plea of in action on the part of the complainant in lodging FIR about the accident of his vehicle. However, facts of the cited case when minutely analyzed, are distinguishable in as much as in the said case, the complainant established his bonafide absence immediately after the accident as he had to go abroad and the job card dated 20.12.1992 was also produced by him before the surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle as well. Whereas in the instant case, as already observed, the complainant kept reticence intriguingly for sufficient long time in not taking any action in sending the vehicle for its repair immediately or sending its intimation to the Insurance -8- Company though undoubtedly he was lax in not lodging the FIR or the complaint. Shri Vikas Sikka Surveyor vide his report Ex.R2 has rightly pointed out that no spot survey of the vehicle was carried out on account of deplorable laxity on the part of the complainant. No support can be had by the complainant from the document Ex.R6 purported to be filled in by the complainant as to when this report was made to the insurance company or its receipt by the officials of the insurance company because the columns for the office use are left blank. In the ultimate analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed miserably to establish the genuineness of his insurance claim in respect of the insured vehicle which was never proved to be damaged in the alleged accident during the insurance period of 7.4.2006 to 6.4.2007, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/insurance company and the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the judgment be sent to the parties free of costs through registered post without any delay. File be consigned to the record room. Dated: Member President 13.11.2007 Sudha Sharma A.K.Sharma
