DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 133 of 13-05-2008<br /> Decided on : 05-03-2009 <br /> <br /> Dr. Anju Gargi, W/o Sh. Mohit Gargi, R/o H. No. 20400, Street No. 12, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.United India Insurance Company Limited, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager.<br /> 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, 24 Whites Road, Chennai 600014, through its M.D<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> Present : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> Sh. S.M. Goyal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SH. PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. This complaint has been filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Anju Gargi, wife of Sh. Mohit Gargi, resident of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, posted at Branch office Barnala and Managing Director posted in its office at Chennai, for giving directions to them to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum against the Insurance policy, from the date of execution till date of payment and payment of Rs. 50,000/- on account of financial loss, mental tension and harassment and a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of cost.<br /> 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she secured the comprehensive Insurance policy with effect from 20-06-2007 to 19-06-2008 for her Zen Car bearing registration No. HR-51-A-5884, vide Cover Note No. 983051. The above said car of the complainant met with an accident on 27-06-2007 at Panchkula in the State of Haryana on account of which DDR No. 10 was registered on even date at Police Station, Sector 20, Panchkula. In the said accident, the car of the complainant was badly damaged and she conveyed intimation about the accident to opposite party No. 1 and furnished all the requisite documents but her claim has been repudiated by the opposite parties without any sufficient cause or reason although the accident has taken place during validity period of Insurance policy, because of which she has suffered mental and physical agony, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and on that account, they are liable to pay compensation and costs of filing the complaint. As they are failed to honour the claim of the complainant despite being approached several times by her, hence this complaint.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed written version resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that it is not maintainable in the present form and being a close proximity and suspected case, inquiry has been ordered but the complainant is not extending co-operation in the same , as such it could not be finalised; that there is no deficiency in service on their part and material questions of law and fact are involved which can be adjudicated in just and proper manner by civil court after parties are afforded opportunities to lead evidence and not in summary manner by this Forum; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct because she has violated the terms and conditions of policy knowingly and willfully and has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the driver of her car did not posses valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, as such, liability cannot be fastened upon the opposite parties under the Insurance policy, to pay compensation and complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is not admitted that complainant is the owner of the car but it is submitted that she be put to strict proof so far taking place of accident is concerned.However, it is admitted that as per cover note, Insurance policy was purchased by the complainant on 20-06-2007 and was valid for the period from 20-06-2007 to 19-06-2008, but it is a close proximity and suspected case about which intimation was given by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on 02-08-2007. It is denied that car of the complainant was badly damaged in the accident at the time and place alleged by the complainant and that they have refused to make payment under the Insurance policy purchased by her. It is submitted that neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor any unfair trade practice has been adopted by them. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.<br /> 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-1 and the copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4, including those of Insurance cover note, DDR and Final Survey Report and closed her evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties furnished affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager, Ex. R-1 and closed their evidence. <br /> 5. We have heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.<br /> 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. S.M. Goyal, Advocate, has submitted that intricate questions of law and fact are involved in the case, as such, controversy cannot be adjudicated in summary manner and parties need to lead elaborate evidence, as such complaint be dismissed with liberty to complainant to avail the remedy in the civil court, if he so desires or is advised.<br /> 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate, has submitted that there is sufficient material on record to enable this Forum to adjudicate the controversy in just and proper manner, as such, there is no need to refer the complaint to civil court.<br /> 8. We find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties because as submitted in the complaint and in her affidavit Ex. C-1, by the complainant, the accident of her car took place at Panchkula on 27-06-2007, but as per the copy of DDR No. 10 registered on 27-06-2007, at Police Station at Panchkula, at the instance of her husband, who was driving her car, the accident took place on 24-06-2007. As per facts borne on record, the intimation about the accident has been conveyed to opposite party No. 1 on 01-08-2007, which was received in his office on 02-08-2007 i.e. after a considerable delay after the accident because of which surveyor deputed by the opposite parties was deprived of opportunity to assess the damage at the place of accident. The opposite parties have lost opportunity to depute their Investigator to gather the facts from the site of accident. The car of the complainant has been checked by the surveyor of the opposite parties at Bathinda and factum and place of accident has not been admitted by them. The cover note has been issued on 20-06-2007 and accident is reported to have taken place on 27-06-2007. Therefore taking place of accident prior to the date of issuance of cover note, cannot be ruled out. The affidavit of the complainant is not corroborated by the affidavit of any other witness who was travelling in her car. Even she has not filed affidavit of her husband although he was the best person as he was driving her car at the time of accident. The plea of the complainant is that car was badly damaged. As such, some passengers travelling therein might have sustained atleast minor injuries, but no such evidence has been led by the complainant.<br /> 9. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that their exist several material questions which need detailed investigation and matter in controversy can be adjudicated in just and proper manner if the parties are afforded opportunities to lead evidence to their satisfaction. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that controversy cannot be adjudicated in summary manner by this Forum.<br /> 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the complainant to avail remedy open to him in the civil court. However, he may seek condonation of delay of the period consumed for pursuing the complaint before this Forum from the civil court as permissible under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> The copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs as per rules, on the subject.<br /> File be indexed and consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-03-2009 (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member Member <br /> <br /> <br />