DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  620

                                                Instituted on:    22.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.05.2018

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Darbara Singh, resident of VPO Rampura, Tehsil  Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Railway Station Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

2.             Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Near Indian Oil Depot, Patran Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP NO.2             :       Exparte.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by getting insured his Mahindra Balero Maxi Truck bearing registration number PB-13-AL-9110 vide policy number 1117023116P118393231 for the period from 31.03.2017 to 30.03.2018 for Rs.4,00,000/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.20,315/- to OP number 1.  The case of the complainant is that on 15.7.2017, the vehicle in question was being driven by Yadwinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh and suddenly met with an accident at Village Wazidke, Barnala Road, Raikot and damaged badly, intimation of which was given to the OP number 1, who appointed surveyor  and instructed the complainant to bring the vehicle to OP number 2.  The OP number 2 prepared the estimate for Rs.3,50,000/- for repairing the vehicle, but actually an amount of Rs.2,58,964/- was spent on the repair of the vehicle and thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to OP number 1, but the OP number 1 paid only an amount of Rs.1,31,777/- to Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, as the vehicle was purchased after raising the loan from the said financer, as such, the OP number 1 withheld an amount of Rs.1,29,887/- without assigning any reason. 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 claim amount of Rs.1,29,887/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

2.             In the written reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is gross abuse of process of law, that the complaint is not maintainable, that  complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and that the complainant has acted in gross violation of condition number 1 of the policy which reads as “notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require”, as such the OP deducted 25% of the assessed amount on account of failure to conduct spot survey by the insured.  It is stated further that the surveyor Er. Jatinder Kalra had minutely conducted the survey of the insured vehicle and assessed the loss of Rs.1,89,036/-, as such after deduction of 25%, the complainant has been paid   an amount of Rs.1,31,777/-. The complaint is said to be false and frivolous one, which should be dismissed with special costs. 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his car in question bearing registration number PB-13-AL-9110 from the OP number 1 vide policy in question for the period from 31.03.2017 to 30.03.2018 on comprehensive basis by paying the requisite premium of Rs.20,315/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident and damaged badly and suffered huge loss and it is further not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP number 1 about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents, the OP number 1 has paid only an amount of Rs.1,31,777/- instead of the amount so spent by the complainant on the repairs of the vehicle in question.  It is worth mentioning here that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,89,037, but the OP number 1 has deducted 25% on account of late submission of the claim by the complainant meaning thereby the OP number 1 has straight way deducted an amount of Rs.57,260/- on the ground that the complainant did not submit the intimation of loss immediately.  It is worth mentioning here that the accident took place on 15.7.2017, but the OP number 1 has not even uttered a single word that on what date the complainant gave intimation about the accident of the vehicle in question, nor the OP number 1 has produced any such intimation on record submitted by the complainant to the OP number 1.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 1 that why the said important document was not produced on record, enabling this Forum to reach at a conclusion about the same. We have also perused the copy of claim form produced by the Op number 1 on record as Ex.OP1/6, which clearly reveals that the complainant submitted the claim form on 17.7.2017 and the accident took place on 15.7.2017.  It is worth mentioning here that 15.7.2017 and 16.7.2017 were the holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday and as such the complainant submitted the claim form on 17.7.2017, as such, we find that there is no delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the loss and the OP has wrongly and wilfully deducted an amount of Rs.57,260/-, which we feel that the OP number 1 is liable to pay to the complainant. By not paying this amount is itself deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,260/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2017 till realisation in full. We further direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order of ours shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                May 22, 2018.

                                                   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                             President

                                                       (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Member