BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 362 of 2015 Date of Institution: 19.8.2015
Date of Decision: 26.11.2015
Puran Singh Sandhu, aged about 58 years, Son of Lakhbir Singh, Resident of House No.2, Village Karma, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, Mobile No. 9914511688.
……..Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, The Mall Road, Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur through its Manager.
……… opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. H.S. Virk, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. M.L. Chug, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //2//
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of one Toyata/Innova -2011, bearing Registration No. PB-05-V-4499 which was insured with the opposite party and the insurance policy was valid from 23.1.2014 to 22.1.2015. Thereafter, the complainant had got a insurance policy of the vehicle in question from the opposite party through one agent namely Anil Kumar Gulati and the above said Anil Kumar Gulati Agent was left the job from the office of the opposite party. On 6.5.2014, the vehicle in question was met with an accident at about 01:15 PM with Mini Bus near village Shenshah and one Bakshish Singh, Son of Suba singh, resident of village Tibbi Kalan, Tehsil and District Ferozepur had lodged the FIR No.35, dated 6.5.2014, U/s 188/427 IPC, Police Station Mamdot, against the mini bus driver namely Ajit Singh and one Mohinder Singh. Further is has been pleaded that thereafter, the complainant has got repair the vehicle in question from Chadha Super Cars (P) Ltd. Radiant Toyota, Dabwali Road, Bathinda and at that time the complainant had paid Rs.3,65,891/- as full repair amount to the above said Chadha Super Cars. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities and requested the opposite party to make the insurance amount of the policy in question to the complainant, but the opposite party has been putting off the complainant on the one pretext or the other. The complainant has also given a letter for reported the accident claim of vehicle in question in the office of the opposite party, but the opposite party flatly refused to make the payment of
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //3//
amount of policy in question. Further is has been pleaded that the complainant has sent a legal notice to the opposite party through his counsel on dated 9.7.2015 through registered post dated 9.7.2015 and the opposite party have issued the two letters to the complainant vide letter reference no. GD, LD, 2015, 1254, dated 29.7.2015 and letter reference No. GD, LD, 2015, 206, dated 15.7.2015, in which the opposite party have raised false allegation that in the above said FIR the registration number of the vehicle in question mentioned as PB 05-V-4499. The registration number of the vehicle mentioned in the above said FIR, just clerically mistake by the investigation officer. Further is has been pleaded that the complainant was suffering from paralysis attack and since is condition was serious, he was under treatment and was advised bed rest. Further is has been pleaded that earlier the complainant have filed the complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party before this Forum on 18.6.2015 and the same was withdrawn on 29.6.2015 with the permission to file the fresh one. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,65,891/- alongwith interest 9% to the complainant on account of damage claim amount, to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs. 11,000/- as costs of present complaint on account of harassment and mental agony.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //4//
complainants. The complainants have also not come to the Forum with clean hands; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case and lengthy procedure of law of evidence is required to be adopted in deciding the complicated questions; the present complaint is not maintainable as the present complaint is pre-mature at this stage. The claim of the complainant has not been decided as on date and it is still under consideration. The complainant asked many a times vide letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015 to give clarification on various points and the complainant failed to submit any reply/clarification on these points, thereafter the opposite party again wrote a similar letter dated 29.7.2015 in which it was specifically stated that in case complainant falls to submit the reply within 7 days, the opposite party will not be able to maintain the claim for a long period. Again no reply has been submitted by the complainant and in the absence of submission of documents, the claim can be rejected/filed as “No Claim”. Till date, the complainant has not complied with the requirements and has not supplied the clarification/information conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015. The opposite party is taking up the matter and shall decide the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. On merits, it has been pleaded in the written reply that the complainant has not repaired the vehicle in question from Chadha Super Cars (P) Ltd. Radiant Toyota, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, However, the surveyor was appointed to assess the loss of vehicle and the surveyor G.S. Associates has assessed the loss of the vehicle of the complainant as Rs.2,11,678/-. The report of the surveyor are recommendatory in nature and are admissible only subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the insurance norms and rules. Other
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //5//
allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-31 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
5. The insurance of the vehicle of the complainant under United India Insurance Company Limtied has been admitted. The accident of the vehicle of the complainant has also been admitted. The grievances of the complainant is that the vehicle in question of the complainant was met with an accident on 6.5.2014 and FIR has been lodged regarding the accident of the vehicle by one Bakshish Singh. The information of the accident of the vehicle was also given to the opposite party. The complainant has got the repair the vehicle in question from Chadha Super Cars (P) Ltd. Radiant Toyota, Dabwali Road, Bathinda and at that time the complainant had paid Rs.3,65,891/- as full repair amount to the above said Chadha Super Cars. The complainant approached the opposite party and submitted all the documents and completed all the formalities and requested the opposite party to make the insurance amount of the policy in question to the complainant, but the opposite party has been putting off the complainant on the one pretext or the other. But till today, the opposite party has been settled the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is that the claim of the complainant has not been decided as on date
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //6//
and it is still under consideration. The complainant has been asked many times vide letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015 to give clarification on various points which are given as under:-
“1. As per intimation letter given by the one Sh. Sukhchain Singh on 12.8.2014 date of loss is 6.5.2015 after approx. 3 months and 6 days later. As per reason given in letter enclosed that his father got paralysied but as per hospital CMC Ludhiana’s record submitted by insued the patient named Puran Singh was admitted on 31.1.2012 and discharged on 17.2.2012. Please clarify, the reason of late intimation of claim in the year 2014.
2. As per intimation letter the place of accident is on Ferozepur to Tibbi Road while intimation was given at Bathinda. Why not at Ferozepur office and spot survey got done? While there was a estimate of Rs.3,73,977/-.
3. As per FIR No.35, dated 6.5.2014 P/S Mamdot vehicle number mentioned is PB-05-V-4449 while vehicle under insurance is PB-05-V-4449 while vehicle under insurance is PB-05-V-4449. Hence insurance company is not liable for vehicle number PB-05-V-4449.
4. Name of the owner of the vehicle is not mentioned in FIR but some Bakshish Singh driving the vehicle has used the words as ‘My Car”. How this car belongs to him while the registration is in name of Mr. Puran Singh.
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //7//
5. As per letter of insured Dt.22.8.2015 submitted & signed by S. Puran Singh(insured) it has been mentioned that he was busy to look after his father who was attacked with Paralysis disease while from other medical record submitted the patient name is S. Puran Singh clarify.
6. Why driving license was not shown to Final Surveyor G.S. Associates at the time of final survey. Even claim from is incomplete i.e. without Driver’s details.”
6. The complainant has failed to submit any reply/clarification on these points, the opposite party again wrote a similar letter dated 29.7.2015 in which it was specifically stated that in case complainant falls to submit the reply within 7 days, the opposite party will not be able to maintain the claim for a long period. The complainant has not complied with the requirements and has not supplied the clarification/information conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015. The opposite party is taking up the matter and shall decide the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The counsel of the opposite party contended that the opposite party is ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. In these circumstances of the case, it is quiet evident that the complainant has not complied requirement which were required for the settlement of the claim.
7. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the complaint is disposed off with direction that the complainant will clarify the queries of the opposite party as mentioned in the letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015 with
C. C. No. 362 of 2015 //8//
in a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy of order. Thereafter, after receiving the answer of the queries from the complainant as mentioned in the letter dated 15.7.2015 and 29.7.2015, the opposite party will settle the claim of the complainant within a period of 30 days. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
26.11.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
