Complainant Atma Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to make the payment of insured amount of Rs.50,000/- of the vehicle in question Aviator bearing No.PB 06-P-1925 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he was the owner of the vehicle “Scootery Honda/Aviator” bearing Registration No.PB-06-P-1925, Engine No.9272618 and Chassis No.8243318 and the same was insured with opposite party vide policy no.1111003111 P001447207 valid from 18.11.2011 to 17.11.2012. It was pleaded that at the time of insurance the temporary no. of the vehicle was PB-06KT-7553 and later on permanent No.PB-06-P-1925 was allotted as such complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. It was further pleaded that on 15.10.2012 at about 11 A.M. complainant along with his daughter Lakhwinder Kaur and her daughter namely Manpreet Kaur D/o Salwinder Singh were going to Gurudwara Shree Bath Sahib on the vehicle in question to pay respect and his relatives namely Jaswinder Singh and Gurminder Singh were also following him on their own motorcycle. It was next pleaded that when they reached in the area of Petrol Pump G.T. Road Dinanagar under the jurisdiction of police station Dinanagar a bus of New Deep Company bearing No.PB-30H-9678 which was driven by Harmail Singh driver rashly and negligently in a very high speed without blowing horn struck into his scootry. It was further pleaded that due the above said accident complainant, his daughter Lakhwinder Kaur and his grand-daughter (Dohtri) Manpreet Kaur fell down on the road whereby he received multiple injuries alongwith his daughter and grand-daughter. His scootery
was also totally damaged. It was also pleaded that complainant and other injured were taken to the Bahri Hospital Dinanagar by Gurminder Singh where doctor provided them First Aid and referred to Civil Hospital Gurdaspur as they are serious. On reaching the Civil Hospital Gurdaspur Manpreet Kaur had died and Lakhwinder Kaur was referred to Amritsar. Complainant also admitted in Arora Hospital Railway Hospital Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that FIR No.270 dated 15.10.2012 U/s 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered at police station Dinanagar on the statement of Jaswinder Singh son of Kehar Singh resident of Village Rania Patti Raba Dhariwal. Said accident was caused by driver Harmail Singh while driving the bus New Deep Company rashly and negligently in a very high speed. It was pleaded that vehicle in question was totally damaged in the accident the price of which was about Rs.50,000/-and the same was lying still in the police custody as a case property. Surveyor of the opposite party also inspected the vehicle and prepared his report. It was pleaded that complainant many times requested the opposite party to pay the claim amount but they are putting of the matter with one pretext or the other. Legal notice dated 12.5.2014 was also served upon the opposite party by the complainant through registered letter through his advocate and requested the opposite party to pay the amount of insurance. In reply to this notice opposite party asked the complainant to submit the particulars and documents of the accident and vehicle. It was also pleaded that on the demand of the opposite party complainant submitted all the requisite documents which were in his possession such as FIR, RC and Insurance Policy etc. but even then opposite party has refused to pay any amount to the complainant on account of damages to the vehicle in question. Opposite party is liable to pay the same to the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objection that complainant has failed to produce the Driving License despite repeated requests as such petition be dismissed being pre-mature. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied in the reply filed by the opposite party and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
- Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Singh Sr. Br. Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We find that there has been no dispute pertaining to the validity of the insurance, which is from 18.11.2011 to 17.11.2012 and accident occurred on 15.10.2012 which is in the validity period. Insurance policy on the file is Ex.C3 and copy of F.I.R. is Ex.C4. This fact of insurance of Scootery Honda/Aviator bearing registration No.PB-06P-1925 was insured, is admitted by Pardeep Singh senior branch manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in his affidavit which is on the file as Ex.OP-1. The only objection which has been raised by the opposite party that the complainant Atma Singh has failed to produce the driving license despite repeated request and as such the petition be dismissed. But on the other hand the complainant has produced on record missing article report of punjab police which is on the file as Ex.C7. It has been clearly mentioned in this report that driving license of the complainant has been lost at G.T. Road Dinanagar near petrol pump in accident. So when the driving license of the complainant has been lost then how can he produce the driving license before the opposite party. So this objection of the opposite party is not tenable. Whereas the other relevant documents has already been produced by the complainant with this complaint. It is further pleaded by complainant that vehicle in question was totally damaged in the accident and the price of which was about Rs.50,000/- and same was lying still in the police custody as a case property. But on perusal of insurance policy which is Ex.C3 it has transpired that insured's declared total value is Rs.44400/-. So it is not understood as to how and why the valid, genuine and legal insurance claim has not been passed in favour of the complainant.
8. So in the light of the all above, we find the opposite party insurers as deficient in providing service and hence ORDER them to pay the complainant the sum insured besides Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. The opposite party insurers shall comply with the orders within 30 days of receipt of its copy of order, otherwise the insurance claim amount of Rs.44400/- shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of order till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JULY 06, 2015 Member.
*YP*
