DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                               Complaint No.         RBT/CC/185/2018

                                                               Instituted on:            16.05.2018

                                                               Decided on:              28.10.2024

Nikhil Rai Gupta aged 37 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, R/O Bhattan Street, Nabha.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Caliber Market,  Patiala Road, Rajpura 140401 through its Branch Manager.

2.     Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Regional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Yogesh Rai Mangla, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Baljit Singh Sodhi, Adv.

                                        (Through Video Conference)

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                             Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala as per the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission vide endorsement number 10226 dated 26.11.2021 for its disposal.

2.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Volkswagon/Polo car bearing registration number CH-01-AL-1041 which was effective from 11.04.2017 to 10.04.2018 for Rs.3,30,000/- by paying the requisite premium to the Ops. Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately the car in question met with an accident on 29.08.2017 and the information regarding the said accident was duly given to the opposite party on 30.08.2017 upon which the OPs appointed surveyor Mr. S.P. Singh, who conducted the spot survey. Further case of complainant is that in the said accident, the car of the complainant struck against an electric pole of PSPCL resulting the damage to the pole and wires due to which the PSPCL claimed an amount of Rs.39,986/- from the complainant for the repair of the pole and other charges vide their letter number 2166 dated 09.10.2017 and the OPs are duty bound to make good all the losses but the OPs did not pay the said claim inspite of making number of requests through e-mails. It is further averred that PSPCL was forcing the complainant to pay the said amount and sent another letter number 716 dated 6.4.2018. Further case of complainant is that the complainant even sent a registered letter to the OPs on 22.12.2017, but nothing was done. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the Opposite party number 1 to make the payment of Rs.39,986/-, but nothing was done,  as such the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.39,986/- with the PSPCL vide cheque number 107386 dated 12.4.2018. Since the vehicle in question was insured comprehensively, as such the OPs were liable to make the payment against third party which they did not pay. As such, the complainant was entitled to recover the said amount from the OPs. 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 the amount of Rs.39,986/- along with interest and further claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that no complaint has been filed by PSPCL in any court regarding recovery of any damages from the complainant, that there is no provision in PSPCL rules to recover damages from any individual and that present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as PSPCL has not been made party in the case. On merits, insurance of the vehicle is admitted and further it is also admitted that the car in question suffered an accident and receipt of intimation of the same is also admitted. Shri S.P.Singh, was deputed for spot survey, who submitted his report dated 14.02.2018. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and it is also denied that the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.39,986/-. It is stated that the PSPCL authorities could recover the damages only through court, but in this case the complainant in collusion with PSPCL himself offered to pay damages and without contesting himself deposited the amount of Rs.39,986/- with the PSPCL authorities. The complainant never contested the final survey report of Shri P.S.Oberoi dated 16.02.2018 for not assessing loss to pole. The complainant has no authority to deposit the amount to PSPCL and then claim the same from the OPs without getting the assessment done by the surveyor of the insurance company.  As such, the OPs have prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/A affidavit and Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 copies of documents. 

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and OPs that the car of the complainant was comprehensively insured with the OPs for the period from 11.04.2017 to 10.04.2018 as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy document Ex.C-1. It is also not in dispute that the car in question suffered accident by striking with the electric pole of the PSPCL. It is also not in dispute that during the accident the car in question suffered loss as well as the pole/wires of the PSPCL also suffered loss due to striking of the car with the electric pole as is evident from final survey report of Shri P.S.Oberoi Ex.OP3, wherein at point number 13 it is mentioned that the car went out of control and hit with an electric pole and the pole fell on the cap car, thus causing damage to it. It is no doubt true that the OPs settled the own damage claim as per the survey report of Shri P.S.Oberoi dated 16.02.2018 Ex.OP3 and paid the claim amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by the car in question. The Ops did not pay the claim for loss of pole/wires. But, in the present case the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled for claiming the amount of Rs.39,986/- from the OPs, which amount he paid to the PSPCL authorities vide cheque number 107386 dated 12.4.2018 of UTI Bank limited on account of loss of pole/wires of the PSPCL.  Our answer to this question is in affirmative as the car in question was comprehensively insured and as the per the insurance policy Ex.C-1 at page 2 of 4, under the clause “Limits of Liability” Under Section II-I(ii) Damages to third party property in respect of any one claim on series of claims arising out of one event Rs.7,50,000/- meaning thereby third party liability was to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- and the OPs have accordingly charged premium for the same from the complainant. Further the complainant has produced on record the copy of letter number 2166 dated 09.10.2017 issued by the PSPCL to the complainant, Ex.C-2, which clearly shows that the loss to the pole was to the tune of Rs.39,986/-. Ex.C-3 is the e-mail dated 07.11.2017 sent by the complainant to the OPs whereby the complainant mentioned that there was a third party loss, as an electric pole of PSPCL was damaged and further requested that the payment be made to the PSPCL. Ex.C-4 is the copy of another letter number 716 dated 06.04.2018 sent by the PSPCL to the complainant whereby the complainant was advised to deposit the amount of Rs.39986/- within a period of seven days, failing which legal action shall be taken.  After receipt of the letter from the PSPCL, the complainant wrote a letter dated 22.12.2017 Ex.C-5 to the OPs praying for payment of Rs.39986/- to the PSPCL authorities. Ex.C-6 is the postal receipt. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs through his counsel on 10.01.2018, Ex.C-7 to make the payment of Rs.39986/- to the PSPCL. Ex.C-8 is the postal receipt. It is contended further that since the OPs failed to pay the amount of Rs.39986/- to the PSPCL, then the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.39986/- to the PSPCL authorities vide receipt dated 16.04.2018 Ex.C-9 and the payment was made through cheque number 107386 dated 12.4.2018 of UTI Bank Limited, Ex.C-10.  In the present case stand of the OPs is that the OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the PSPCL authorities without getting the loss assessed from the approved surveyor.  It is worth mentioning here that it is the OPs who chose not to get assessed the loss to the pole/wires. When the loss was assessed by the surveyor to the car, then why the loss to the pole/wires was not got assessed from the surveyor by the OPs is not justified. Even OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant despite so many requests as well as legal notice as is evident from Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-7.  Since the car in question was insured comprehensively with the OPs, then there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that who prevented the OPs from getting the loss to the pole/wires of the PSPCL surveyed from the approved surveyor as mentioned by the OPs in para number 7 of the written reply. It is the OPs who did not choose to get the loss to the pole/wires surveyed.  Moreover, the estimate of loss has been prepared by the PSPCL authorities concerned and the amount was paid by the complainant to the PSPCL authorities to avoid any litigation, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.39,986/- under the loss of third party clause.     

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.39,986/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit with the PSPCL i.e. 16.04.2018 till realisation in full. We further direct OPs  to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

8.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala.  File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala for records after due compliance.

                        Pronounced.

                October 28, 2024.

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member                       Member                  President