BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 709 of 2015
Date of Institution: 10.12.2015
Date of Decision: 13.5.2016
Harbhajan Singh son of Chanan Singh R/o Khemkaran Road, Bhikhiwind, Tehsil Patti,Tarn Taran, Punjab
Complainant
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 35, Dharam Singh Market, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 11-A, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Rajwinder Pal Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Sh.P.N.Khanna,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh. Harbhajan Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is permanent resident of abovesaid address and is peace loving and law abiding citizen. The complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. car make Hyundai CRDI/2008 Verna bearing No.PB-02-BB-2431 from the Insurance company/opposite party No. 1 vide policy No.200301/31/13/P/106460492 w.e.f. 7.1.2014 to 6.1.2015. Unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant met with road accident on 30.1.2014 near VPO Sur Singh, Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran and in this regard complainant duly informed the office of the opposite parties . Accordingly, survey report was got conducted by surveyor appointed by the opposite party and final report was submitted by the surveyor for claim of Rs. 60000/- approximately. But, however, subsequently the said surveyor finally recommended for claim for an amount of Rs. 45,363.73 only. The complainant has been approaching the opposite parties time and again for getting his claim, but the opposite parties always put off the matter on one pretext or the other. After the submission of the survey report, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party at Amritsar for about 10 times , but every time he was told by the branch manager Sh. Ashok Gill that Sh.S.S.Bawa has been deputed to hold the investigation afresh. Sh.S.S.Bawa visited the complainant’s premises for enquiry and all the documents were submitted as required by him. Later on the complainant visited the office of Sh.S.S. Bawa twice on his call and was told by Mr.S.S.Bawa ,Investigator that he had submitted his report to branch manager at the company office. Opposite parties are legally bound to make payment of the claim to the complainant and there is no bar in granting his claim. Since the amount of Rs.45,363.73 has been illegally with-held by the opposite party and as such the complainant is entitled to interest on the amount from the date of entitlement till realization at the rate of 18% p.a. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is premature and without cause of action and as such the same is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable ; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he is guilty of suppression of material facts. Infact in the present case, no final decision on merits could be taken by competent authority as the complainant himself failed to provide requisite information/documents as required by the Insurance company . In this regard, in short, it is submitted that complainant obtained policy in question by showing original RC in his name and all the registration particulars including chassis number and engine number were properly filled up in the said policy by the officials of the opposite party from the original RC produced by the complainant. As such contract of insurance was completed on the basis of utmost good faith. However, when the complainant lodged claim regarding damaged caused to his vehicle, the independent surveyor was deputed to carry out survey and during the said process, the photographs of damaged vehicle were taken including the photograph depicting chassis number and engine number. During this process it transpired that infact the engine number as mentioned in the RC produced by the complainant at the time of obtaining the insurance policy is different one as per engine number physically verified at the spot by the surveyor. Under these circumstances, the complainant who used to visit the office of the opposite party frequently for following his claim was informed personally as well as through the agent from whom he obtained the insurance policy on the basis of original RC that there is some discrepancy regarding the digits of engine number as mentioned in the RC and those available on the engine of the damaged vehicle. Therefore, he should get rectification of RC from the concerned RT office and submit the same with the Insurance company so that his claim could be processed on merits as per loss assessed by the independent surveyor . However, instead of taking the requisite steps, the complainant tried to level allegations of bribe against the staff of opposite party and also made complaint that his claim is unnecessarily not being paid by the Insurance company. However, those allegations were totally wrong in the light of the submissions made hereinabove. It is again submitted that on account of discrepancy in the engine number as mentioned in the RC and that available on the engine of the damaged vehicle, the claim could not be finalized on either side. As such the matter is still pending because the complainant filed the present complaint which is without any merit and is premature as well . As far as loss of quantum is concerned, it is submitted that the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs. 45,364/- and independent surveyor has also assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 45,363.73P. However, from the said amount a sum of Rs. 1000/- has been deducted towards excess clause and as such loss payable has been arrived at Rs. 44,363.73 paise. The salvage value has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 1100/-. As the complainant has retained the salvage with him, therefore, this amount of Rs. 1100/- is to be further deducted from Rs. 44,363.73paise. However, amount of Rs.45,363.73P was recommended by the surveyor as per terms and conditions of the policy and acceptance of the underwriters. The said amount could not be paid on account of aforesaid discrepancy in engine number as mentioned in the original RC as well as on insurance cover & the number mentioned on the engine of the damaged vehicle; that there is no allegation of deficiency alleged in the complaint on the part of the opposite party, as such the complaint as framed was not maintainable. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied on the basis of pleas taken in the preliminary objections and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove Sh.Rajwinder Pal Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.P.N.Khanna,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Harvinder Prinja,Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP1-3/1, affidavit of Sh.Tejinder Singh,Surveyor & Loss Assessor Ex.OP1-3/2, surveyor report Ex.OP1-3/3,copy of RC of vehicle No. PB-02-BV-2431 bearing Chassis No. 59348 and Engine No.839289 Ex.OP1-3/4, RC verification report Ex.OP1-3/5, photograph taken by the surveyor depicting chassis number and engine number as 59348 and 639289 respectively Ex.OP1-3/6, certified copy of Insurance policy with respect to vehicle No. PB-02-BV-2431 with Chassis No.59348 and Engine No. 839289 Ex.OP1-3/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 3.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. There is no dispute that the car bearing registration No. PB-02-BV-2431 was got insured by the complainant from opposite party No.1 vide insurance cover copy whereof is Ex.OP1-3/7. It is also not disputed that the car in dispute met with an accident on 6.3.2014 and a surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties to assess the loss, who submitted his report, copy whereof is Ex.OP1-3/3 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 45363.73paise. But,however, the claim furnished by the complainant could not be approved because the engine number mentioned in the insurance policy did not concur with the one mentioned on the engine of the vehicle in dispute and the fact came to the knowledge of the opposite parties from the photographs taken by the surveyor at the time of investigating the matter. This matter was intimated to the complainant for getting needful done from the appropriate registration authorities. But instead of taking the requisite steps, the complainant has been trading wild charges against the opposite parties. During the course of arguments, it came to the notice that the requisite rectification in the engine number has been got made by the complainant during the pendency of the present proceedings and the requisite copy of the registration certificate accounts for Ex.OP1-3/4. Since the Insurance company has not decided the claim so far, therefore, instant complaint was premature. Consequently we direct the complainant to submit the copy of rectified registration certificate to opposite parties for deciding the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and the opposite parties shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of two months therefrom. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 13.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
