Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/90

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K.Bhanot, Adv.

03 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                               Consumer Complaint No.90 of 2020

                                              Date of institution: 14.10.2020

                                              Date of Decision: 03.09.2021

 

 

Davinder Singh aged about 36 years son of Kuldeep Singh, resident of House No.1693/22, Gandhi Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office SCO No.127-128, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through their Branch Manager   

                                                    ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                       Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:    Sh. S.K.Bhanot, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Narinder Kumar, Adv. for O.P.

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above         complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the         complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the       Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP for short) on the       ground that the CC is a registered owner of the truck bearing No. PB-12-N-3816, and accordingly subscribed the insurance policy dated 01.06.2019 of the OP for his truck, which was valid on the date of accident. On 07.06.2019, the truck of the CC met with an accident and was completely damaged in the accident. It is averred that information was duly given to the OP on 07.06.2019 and on 10.06.2019 in writing also. It is averred that due to accident, there was a total loss of the truck. OP got the form filled up from the CC and received all the documents and promised to settle the claim of     the CC. It is further averred that OP even appointed Sh. Davinder Sharma,           investigator, to investigate the facts of the accident, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,48,500/- on net salvage basis with RC, but even that amount was not paid to the CC. CC is suffering a huge financial loss since he is continuously paying the loan with penal interest to the bank and is suffering mental agony and harassment due to non settling of the claim by the OP. On 21.07.2020, OP repudiated the claim of the CC on the ground mentioned in the letter. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the CC has sought the claim of the truck along with compensation of Rs.50000/- along with Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges. Complaint of the CC is duly signed     and verified.

2.       In reply, the OP has raised a number of preliminary objections by citing various judgments. However, it is admitted that the CC is owner of the truck as per the RC. It is alleged that vehicle is being used for commercial purpose at the time of alleged accident, a driver was also employed by the CC to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Even, the maintainability of the complaint is also challenged. Further, the complaint is challenged by the OP on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is averred that two unauthorized passengers namely Suman Devi and Daljit Kaur were travelling in the truck at the time of accident along with the driver. Neither the CC nor the driver of the vehicle had any kind of relationship with the above two passengers and both the unauthorized passengers have also filed the claim petitions against the OP in the MACT, Rupnagar, as such, the CC has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy. It is further averred that CC had misrepresented by giving wrong information regarding the date of accident in the letter dated 10.06.2019. On merits, OP has denied all the paras of the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Version of the OP is signed and verified.

3.       In support of his complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant has           tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to           Ex.C9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered           affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Heera, Deputy Manager of OP1, affidavit of Sh. RP     Singh, Sureveyor Ex.OP2 along with documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP25.

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

5.      It is specifically alleged by the OP that CC is a transporter by profession and also running the transport business in the name of Fateh Transport and had engaged in large scale commercial activities and not earning his livelihood by self employment. I feel, that the contention of the OP do not augur well for him since there is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence on the file to prove that the vehicle was not exclusively used for earning his livelihood. Thus, the CC very well falls within the definition of a consumer.

6.      We have perused the repudiation letter of the OP, wherein, it is mentioned that as per the final survey, a loss of Rs.6,48,500/- is assessed on net salvage basis. But the claim was not given to the CC by the OP on the ground that he has misrepresented the facts in the letter dated 10.06.2019 regarding the date of accident.

7.      From the perusal of the repudiation letter, it appears that OP had no reason to withhold the claim of the CC and this letter was created simply to cause mental as well as physical harassment to the CC. This letter is nothing but only created to refute the claim and that too without any reason, the contents of this letter are absolutely vague, absurd and makes no sense. This letter further shows the intention and behaviour of the officials of the OP and further clearly proves the mental as well as physical harassment on the CC. We also feel that, there is no cogent or any reliable reason with the OP to deny the genuine claim of the CC.

8.      No doubt, the CC suffered a total loss as per photographs submitted by the CC. But surprisingly, the Advocate of the CC or the CC did not contest the report  of Davinder Sharma, who assessed the loss of the truck to the tune of Rs.6,48,500/-. There is no evidence in rebuttal from the side of the CC and CC has not challenged the veracity of the report of the investigator and loss assessor.

9.      In the absence of any evidence against the report of surveyor of the OP, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.6,48,500/-, this Commission has no option except to believe that CC had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.6,48,500/-. Though, the CC had the option to rebut this report and furnish more evidence to prove that he suffered a total loss of the truck, but at the same time, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further mental and physical harassment on the part of the OP, which is caused to the CC is writ-large on the file.

10.     In view of the our above discussion, we allow the present complaint in favour of the CC and order the OP to pay Rs.6,48,500/- to the CC along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. We also burden the OP to pay an amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental as well as  physical harassment to the CC by adopting frivolous and vague reasons in the repudiation letter. The OP is further is further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order, failing which, the CC will be further entitled to the interest on the compensation @ 18% per annum.   Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

•  

September 03, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

 

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•