BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.505 of 2018
Date of Instt. 18.12.2018
Date of Decision: 26.11.2021
Arun Kumar Gosian aged 59 years son of Late Sh. Satpal Gosain resident of House No.28-A, Baba Budha Ji Enclave, Dakoha, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Syal House, Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar through its Senior Divisional/Senior Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. P. P. S. Ahluwalia, Adv. Counsel for the OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased the Private Car Package policy for his car bearing registration No.PB-08-CC-8283 make Toyota Etios VXD Diesel in the year 2013-14, after paying the premium of Rs.9335/- from 23.06.2013 to 22.06.2014. That the said policy was Deb Cab Policy (Bumper to Bumper). Thereafter the complainant again renewed the same policy from 23.05.2014 to 22.06.2015 after paying the premium of Rs.11,435/-. Then again the said policy was renewed by the complainant after paying premium of Rs.10,759/- from 23.06.2015 to 22.06.2016 and renewed from 23.06.2016 to 22.06.2017 after paying premium of Rs.9747/-. All the said policies under Deb Cab Policy were conveyed to complainant by Divisional Office of OP namely Sh. Yogesh Khurana. That in the year 2016 unfortunately vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and the same was damaged due to said accident. Then the complainant immediately informed the said incident to the OP and on the asking of surveyor of OP, the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop i.e. Castle Toyota, GT Road, Paragpur and the total amount of Rs.70,623/- was spent for the repair of said vehicle and said amount was paid by the complainant from his own pocket. That thereafter the said claim of Rs.70,623/- was claimed by the complainant before the OP vide claim bill dated 28.11.2016, but unfortunately only amount of Rs.44,000/- was credited by the OP on 21.12.2016 on the ground that the vehicle of the complainant was insured under normal policy and not under deb cab policy, whereas the OP have charged the amount from the complainant for deb cab policy i.e. the car of the complainant fully assured with the OP. That thereafter the complainant approached the OP many times for the remaining claim amount of Rs.26,623/- and the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OP be directed to pay Rs.26,623/- as remaining claim of the complainant covered under Deb Cab Policy and further the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer in the eyes of law. It is further averred that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP nor the same can be attributed to the Insurance Company. That the matter is of technical nature and related to complicated questions of the facts, which requires in depth investigation cross-examination of witnesses framing of issues, cross-examination of witnesses and evidence which requires appreciation by the Civil Court. It is further averred that the liability of the insurance company, if any, is strictly as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the insurance company. The present claim has been filed beyond the scope of terms and conditions as stipulated in the insurance cover as such the OP is not liable to pay any additional claim. It is further averred that the complainant has concealed material facts before this Commission and that too from the OP and is stopped by his act and conduct to raise any claim against the OP. It is further averred that the claim of the complainant is suspicious, false and is not supported by insurance policy or surveyor’s report as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. The present complaint has not been filed within the time prescribed under law from the date of cause of action, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the factum in regard to taking Private Car Package Policy by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parites and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has sought the refund of Rs.26,623/- as the claim of the complainant is covered under Deb Cab Policy alongwith damages and litigation expenses. Whereas the OP has stated it was not a deb cab policy rather it was a normal policy and premium in respect thereto was charged accordingly. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint as the entire claim has already been paid.
7. It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant purchased the private car package policy for his car bearing registration No.PB-08-CC-8283 make Toyota Etios VXD Diesel. He has produced on record the previous policy Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and perusal of the same i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 show that these were deb cab policies and in the column of own damage and liability, there is head nil depreciation and charges have been received against this head in all the Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, whereas in the policy Ex.C-4, which relates to the relevant period i.e. 23.06.2016 and 22.06.2017 was a normal policy and there is no head as nil depreciation and no charges were received qua this head.
8. The contention of the complainant is that when the vehicle was insured, the premium was taken by the OP as deb and cab policy, but the same has not been mentioned in the Ex.C-4. The accident took place in the year 2016 and the vehicle was damaged in the said accident. The claim of total amount of Rs.70,623/- was furnished as this amount was paid by the complainant. It is admitted fact that the Surveyor was appointed and as per the report made by the Surveyor, the amount of Rs.44,757/- was recommended and this amount was paid by the OP to the complainant. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission, where the claim is given on the basis of the report of Surveyor that should be considered. The surveyor being independent and qualified person appointed under Insurance Act, Surveyors report not to be dismissed summarily. So as per the law laid down, the report of Surveyor cannot be ignored and as per the report of Surveyor, the amount has been paid as the policy was not a deb cab policy as alleged rather the same was normal policy and the premium of the normal policy was paid by the complainant.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.11.2021 Member President
