BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RESRESSAL FORUM FATEHABAD
Consumer Complaint No.10/2017
Date of Institution: 10.1.2017
Date of Order : 01.8.2017
Bachan Singh son of Inder Singh caste Rai Sikh resident of Mohalla Gurunanakpura, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
……..Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, 75-A, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
………Opposite party
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Argued by: Sh.Jitender Thakkar, Adv. for the complainant
Sh.N.D. Mittal Adv. for the Op
Order:
The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he was the registered owner of a tractor make Sonalika bearing registration no.HR-22G / 4960 and it was insured with the Op vide insurance policy No.1119033112P000801548 dated 14.9.2012 valid till 13.9.2013. That on 22.11.2012 during the subsistence of the policy, the tractor with trolly was got burnt due to electricity current which came from hanging electricity wire near Kuldeep Palace, Ratia Road, Fatehabad and due to this the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.400000/-. It is further averred that a DDR No.16 dated 23.11.2012 regarding the incident was recorded with P.S. City Fatehabad and an intimation in this regard was also sent to the opposite party. A fire report No.49 dated 22.11.2012 was also prepared by Fire-man Sita Ram, Market Committee, Fatehabad. It is further averred that the complainant had applied for a claim to the Op and also submitted all the requisite documents. The Op also assured the complainant that his claim will be settled very soon. However, later on refused to do so which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Op and for that, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50000/- from the Op on account of mental agony, harassment and humiliation. It is further averred that the driver of the said tractor namely Sharwan Kumar son of Mahavir Singh had filed an application No.14 of 2014 on 11.8.2014 before Commissioner Under Employees Compensation Act 1923, Sirsa against the complainant along with OP and that application was decided on 30.9.2016 holding the Op liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this complaint with the prayer to pay Rs. 400000/- by the Op after settling the claim along with interest @ 12% per annum besides compensation of Rs.50000/-.
2. On notice, Op appeared and filed reply to the compliant taking preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is hopelessly time barred and that the complainant has not come with clean hands and has twisted the facts and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been submitted the driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence which is a grave violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In reply, it has also been denied that complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.4 lacs rather the net loss as assessed by the surveyor was Rs.23042/- and out of which Rs4000/- was to be deducted on account of salvage. It is further submitted that since the driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 25.3.2013. It is further submitted that the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 25.3.2013 when the claim was repudiated and not on 30.9.2016 the date of order passed by Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act. In the end, the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit as Annexure C1, copy of registration certificate as Annexure C2, Copy of fire report as Annexure C3 and copy of order dt.30.9.2016 passed by Sheri Manish Kumar HLS Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Sirsa camp at Fatehabad. On the other hand, the Op filed affidavit of KR Jain, DM, as Annexure R1, copy of letter regarding closing of claim Annexure R2, copy of surveyor report is Annexure R3, copy of driving licence as Annexure R4 ,copy of verification as Annexure R5 and copy of policy as Annexure R6. Thereafter, both the parties closed their evidence vide separate statements.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file carefully.
5. A perusal of the letter dated 25.3.2013 issued by the OP vide which the claim of the complainant has been closed reveals that the claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP inter-alia on the ground that inspite of letter/reminders sent to the complainant, compliance regarding submitting of required papers/documents was not made by the complainant. Therefore, the present claim of the complainant has not been repudiated on merits rather the same has been closed by OP. An inter-alia on the ground of non furnishing of the requisite papers/documents by the complainant. However, no such documents or papers have been put on the record of the file. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP and the same has not been repudiated/decided on merits. In view of the aforesaid facts the complainant is given liberty to file the requisite documents/papers as sought by the OP within 15 days and thereafter the OP will decide the claim within 30 days from the receipt of the papers/documents. The complainant will have further liberty to challenge the decision of OP to be taken by him in deciding the claim. The present complainant is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
(R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi) (RaghbirSingh) Dt.1.8.2017
Member Member President