DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  33

                                                Instituted on:    02.02.2018

                                                Decided on:       10.05.2018

Sukhjinder Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of Village Jhaneri, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

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

                                                        ..Opposite party.

For the complainant  :       Shri Padam Paul, Adv.

For Opposite party   :       Shri Gagandeep Sibia, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Sukhjinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Swift car bearing registration number PB-65S-0202 from one Sandeep Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh, resident of Sangrur and thereafter the same was got transferred in his name from Transport Authority, Sangrur.  Further case of the complainant is that the car in question met with an accident and damaged badly, of which DDR number 21 dated 2.11.2017 was lodged at PS Sadar Sangrur.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP and intimated regarding the said accident and also submitted all the documents and requested to appoint the surveyor, but the OP did not appoint the surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 1.12.2017 upon the OP, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to appoint surveyor and to release the claim amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a  consumer, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  The complainant neither approached the OP nor submitted any documents, so the question of giving any assurance to the complainant regarding appointing the surveyor does not arise at all.  It is stated that the complaint is false one and has stated that the insurance policy is in the name of Sandeep Singh and as such it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1  affidavit and closed evidence. 

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

5.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that he had purchased the car in question bearing registration number PB-65S-0202 from one Sandeep Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Sangrur and got transferred in his name.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the car in question was insured with the OP, which suffered accident and damaged badly, of which DDR number 21 dated 2.11.2017 was lodged at PS Sadar, Sangrur. Further the leaned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though he approached the OP a number of times to get the claim amount released, but the OP did not pay any attention towards the genuine request of the complainant nor the OP chose to appoint any surveyor to get the loss assessed and now the complainant has sought relief for appointment of the surveyor to assess the loss.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the complainant never intimated the OP about the accident of the vehicle in question nor the complainant submitted any documentary evidence about the accident, so the question of appointment of the surveyor does not arise at all.  Now, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to appoint the surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle and thereafter to consider it whether the claim is payable or not.

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP to appoint surveyor to assess the loss of the damaged vehicle in question and thereafter to consider the claim of the complainant whether the same is payable or not and intimate its decision accordingly to the complainant.  This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        May 10, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member