Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/26

Satwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  26 of 09.04.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     07.08.2018

    

Satwinder Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Inderjit Singh, is permanent resident of Village Marwa, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, 1^st floor, Near PNB                Bank, GT Road, Morinda, District Ropar, through its Branch   Manager.

2.  Devinder Sharma, A.I.I.I. Investigator & Loss Assessor, General Insurance Claims, resident of Krishna Cottage, 27-D, Dyal Bagh, Ambala Cantt. 

                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Butta Singh Januha, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. Ankur Verma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

Complaint against OP NO.2 stand Dismissed as Withdrawn vide order dated 09.07.2018 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.11,18,609/- for burnt car Polo bearing registration No.PB-11-BK-8898; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. and for causing mental and physical tension pain and harassment; any other relief which this Forum may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be awarded to the complainant 

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant is owner of car polo bearing registration No.PB-11-BK-8898. The O.Ps agent namely Baljit Singh had visited the house of the complainant at Village Marwa and offered him to purchased an insurance policy of the said car. Then complainant purchased a policy of the said car from the O.P's agent on 22.8.2015 vide policy No.1121813115P147843812 w.e.f. 22.8.2015 to 21.8.2016. On 06.05.2016, due to short circuit, the car in question burned and the complainant also lodged a DDR No.10 dated 7.5.2016 at PS Bassi Pathana. After this, the complainant has prepared the estimate report regarding the said burnt car of Rs.11,18,609/- and he has also paid the estimate fee of Rs.7500/- vide receipt No.720 dated 21.6.2016. The said estimate report along with original insurance papers for further proceedings was sent to the Davinder Sharma, investigator and loss assessor of O.P. and mistakenly, the complainant did not remained the photocopies of the said documents. The complainant visited many times at the office of O.P. as well as the office of said Davinder Sharma for claim the amount but both have linger on the matter by one pretext or the other and Davinder Sharma also demanded Rs.50,000/- for sanction the claim. The complainant has also gave application against said Davinder Sharma to the O.P. branch but have not take any action against him. Hence, this complaint.  

  3.  On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant have no locus standi to file the present complaint; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that previously the complainant has filed the complaint in this Hon'ble Forum bearing CC No.78 of 2017 which has been withdrawn on 2.1.2018 by the complainant on the ground that he will file the fresh complaint if the claim is repudiated by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 has not repudiated the claim till date. So the present complaint is premature. The car bearing No.PB-01-BK-8898 was insured with the answering O.P. and the car bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898 was not insured by the insurance company. The car bearing registration No.PB-01-BK-8898 insured with the O.P. No.1 was not burnt on6.5.2016 due to short circuit as is pleaded. The OP No.1 on information has deputed a surveyor namely RP Singh to assess the loss who has given his surveyor report dated 3.10.2016 relating to the damage of the car bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898 and has assessed the loss of Rs.3,89,000/- on net on salve loss basis as per his said report and the O.P. No.1 has also deputed Sh. Davinder Sharma investigator to investigate the case and investigator has raised the queries from the complainant and has sent six letters to him dated 28.10.2016, reminder dated 8.12.2016, letter dated 24.1.2017, letter dated 12.2.2017, with copy of letter dated 12.2.2017 addressed to the dealer of the car and letter dated 27.2.2017 but the complainant has not replied nor any response was given by the complainant insured to Sh. Davinder Sharma, investigator till date. There are so many doubts regarding the OD claim of the car observed by the investigator Sh. Davinder Sharma in his investigator report. The final surveyor Sh. RP Singh stated in his survey report that the place of his survey was at M/S Bhagat Automobiles Limited Patiala and has accordingly charged the conveyance. How it is possible when the dealer confirmed in writing that the damaged car bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898 never brought to their workshop for inspection. It is further stated that fpr total burnt car due to fire when no call was made to the fire brigade and when disclosed proximate cause by the insured seems to be doubtful and no long journey has been travelled on the car and the analysis report for cause of fire from the visiting engineer of the manufacturer to the dealer is required to avoid any foul play because the insured is intentionally escaping from analysis report from the dealer as required by the investigator. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.  The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered sworn affidavit of Smt. HemLata, Deputy Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited Ex.OP1, sworn affidavit of Sh. Davinder Sharma, investigator Ex.OP2 along with documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP14 and closed the evidence. 

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Butta Singh Januha, argued that this is the second complaint as in earlier complaint No.78 dated 22.12.2017, OP was directed to decide the claim of the burnt car bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898 of complainant. But despite requests, OP did not decide the claim either in affirmative or in rejection. The complaint deserves to be allowed as the surveyor RP Singh assessed the loss Rs.3,89,000 and the policy was of Rs.4,00,000/-. Lastly by referring the documentary evidence prayed to allow the complaint.

7.    Sh. Ankur Verma, counsel for OP No.1 argued that complainant has leveled the serious allegations against OP No.2 but the complaint stand withdrawn against the said OP. If the complaint withdrawn then the entire complaint is without merit. Learned counsel coming to the controversial point argued that no doubt, complainant purchased policy for the valid period w.e.f. 22.8.2015 to 21.8.2016 of the vehicle bearing No.PB-01-BK-8898. But in the complaint referred the RC bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898. Contrary to this produced the photographs of the burnt car bearing registration No.PB-23-BK-8898. Under the doubted circumstances, OP demanded certain information which is reproduced in para No.4 i.e. point A,B and BI to BXXXIII. The complainant did not answer the questions put rather relying upon the false documents made prayer for the payment of burnt car bearing No.PB-23-BK-8898.  That is why the surveyor Mr. Sharma was pointed to whom that the complainant is not going to cooperate. So till today, the claim neither repudiated nor accepted. Kindly the complaint be dismissed or in alternative complainant be directed to made compliance for the necessary information.

8.    Complainant has relied upon policy Ex.C6, pertaining to the period 22.8.2015 to 21.8.2016 and OP not denied issuance of the policy. Complainant alleged burning of the car, surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss and there is dispute qua the registration of the vehicle. Complainant alleged in policy ELG number whereas photographs are of other vehicle bearing registration No.PB-23-BK-8898 and the surveyor given the different RC number. So it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

9.    Coming to the controversial point, complainant alleged through policy registration of the vehicle bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898, photographs are of vehicle bearing No.PB-23-BK-8898, whereas the surveyor given the vehicle No.PB-11-BK-8898. It has also come in evidence yet claim neither rejected nor accepted. Despite the fact the occurrence relates to 6.5.2016. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and appreciated the law as well as documentary evidence and forum is of the considered opinion that until and unless the claim not repudiated and the complaint is not maintainable. But the circumstances referred above are the peculiar nature. Complainant not placed on file copy of RC and in the absence of RC, forum can't considered the correct registration number then policy dated 22.8.2015 relates to vehicle bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898. Whereas the photographs are of different vehicle, which were taken by the surveyor supposed to be in the presence of complainant and vehicle number is mentioned through photographs of the vehicle bearing No.PB-23-BK-8898. At the same time, the surveyor report which is relied upon by the complainant as of RP Singh, who mentioned the registration of the vehicle bearing No.PB-11-BK-8898. Beside the report, complainant stated payment of Rs.9767/- to the surveyor including carriage of the vehicle for inspection. OP counsel taken the plea that if the vehicle was totally burnt then for what purpose it was lifted or made the payment Rs.9767/-. Further OP counsel referred the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, order dated 13.7.2007, passed in appeal No.228 of 2002, titled as Sarvalaxmi Marines Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. In this said judgment, law is laid down that insurance claim alleged surveyor/investigator appointed held insurer could appoint investigator in case a claim is found to be fraudulent. There is no allegation of any fraud which needed investigation. The report of surveyor as of independent agency and are qualified and licensed to carried out the work cannot be brushed aside light through this authority. Insurer has given the light for the appointment of the investigator/surveyor. Moreso, OP has taken the stand that complainant did not supply the necessary information as pleaded in the reply para No.4. After appreciating the document evidence, the forum has come to the conclusion that though the matter in controversy is of critical nature and it requires evidence/documentary evidence with specific report qua the burnt vehicle. Still the claim not repudiated and as per claim of OP complainant did not supply the necessary information. Under these circumstances, complainant remains fail in proving deficiency on the part of the O.P. Rather the delay is due to non supply of necessary information as well as the correct number of the vehicle.

10.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant firstly to made compliance/supply necessary information as mentioned in para No.4 in reply on merits i.e. a, b then bI to BXXXIII, positively within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and all the information be supplied against receipt. On receipt of the information/document OP directed to appoint the investigator/surveyor with prior intimation to the complainant and decide the claim within six months. However, the parties are ordered to bear their own cost.        

11.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.07.08.2018                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER