Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 103 of 2018
Date of Institution : 26.09.2018
Date of Decision : 24.11.2021
M/s Pandori Ran Singh Bus Service Regd. through its proprietor and partner Sh. Pargat Singh aged about 55 years son of Jaswant Singh resident of village Pandori Ran Singh Tehsil and District Tarn Taran 861977718120.
...Complainant
Versus
M/s Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. B9/2-2481, Second Floor Civil Lines Old G.T. Road Jalandhar City Pin No. 144001.
…Opposite Party.
Complaint Under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
Ms. Nidhi Verma, Member
For Complainant Sh. G.S. Sandhu Advocate
For Opposite Party Sh. Amit Bhatia Advocate
PER:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the opposite party is doing the business of Travelling and having Bus in the name and style M/s Pandori Ran Singh Bus Service Regd. The complainant is having bus bearing No. PB-02BR-9357, vide contract No. PB T00014D. The bus is insured for the period of 15.9.2016 to 14.9.2017 and thereafter from 15.9.2017 to 14.9.2018. The said bus bearing No. PB-02BR-9357 is plying Tarn Taran to Goindwal Sahib. The said bus is fully insured with the opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 9,02,500/- and premium of Rs. 76,827/- has been paid to the insurance company. The bus was having insurance policy for the period from 15.9.2017 to 14.9.2018 were issued vide cover note No. 59995694 on dated 24.8.2017 in favour of the complainant. The said bus was plying by Gursewak Singh son of Jagir Singh resident of village Koharka and its conductor was Manjit Singh son of Sawinder Singh village and P.O. Walipur Tehsil & District Tarn Taran. The said bus was plying three times in a day and earning Rs. 15,000/- per day. The said insured bus bearing No. PB02-BR-9357 met with an accident on Goindwal Tarn Taran road while plying there on 2.4.2017 and the complainant has approached the opposite party and field staff. The surveyor of the company clicked the photographs of the occurrence at the spot and complainant requested for its claim to get the bus repaired. The surveyor of the company himself produced the bills of spare parts/ repair from the concerned workshop of Jalandhar and the complete file of claim is pending with insurance company but the opposite party has not paid any heed to resolve the matter. The complainant has got his bus repaired bearing its repair and spare parts charges from his own pocket amounting to Rs. 1,70,250/- to make it worthy to ply on road for passengers. Despite many demands made by the complainant for the policy of insurance but the opposite party has not paid heed to it. The complainant has got his bus repaired and spent an amount of Rs. 1,70,250/- on its repair and spare parts from his own pocket. The opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by breaching the contract of insurance. The bus stopped for repair in workshop center for 22 days as such, the complainant suffered the loss of loss of Rs.3,50,000/- due to deficiency in service. The surveyor of the insurance company has seen the occurrence and has given report at the spot. Officials of opposite party had refused to pay the claim and the concerned officials have repudiated the claim leveling false allegations. As per receipt issued by Vikas Motors invoice No. 69, the complainant spent Rs. 23,250/- for spare parts and Rs. 1,47,000/- for repair of bus issued by DS and sons. The said accident was occurred in the presence of driver of the Bus and conductor of the bus. Due to this accident the vehicle sustained heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 1,70,250/-. Official of the Opposite party manipulated the word just to save their skin and further to harass, humiliate the complainant and offered to pay only Rs. 45,000/- in lump sum and declined to pay the whole amount for damages occurred to the insured vehicle. A legal notice dated 2.12.2017 was also sent to the opposite party but no reply ever received by the complainant or his counsel. The complainant has preferred a claim but no amount of single penny was received by the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,70,250/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The complainant has also prayed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant CW1/A, RC of the Bus Ex. C-1, Cover note of Insurance Ex. C-2, E mail record of Insurance company Ex. C-3, Photographs Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6, Notice with receipt Ex. C-7, route permit Ex. C-8, Bill No. 69 of Vikas Motors Ex. C-9, Bill from D.S. & Sons Jalandhar Ex. C-10, Pollution Under Control Certificate Ex. C-11, Account Statement Ex. C-12, Photographs Ex. C-14 and C-15.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that present complaint is legally not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Commission. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 2.4.2017 and got damages. The claim was intimated to the company on 3.4.2017 on next day of the incident and surveyor i.e. ‘Vipan Manyal’ was appointed by the company. The initial survey was done and surveyor requested to the complainant for repair the vehicle. The claim is in process and the insured/ complainant take the delivery of the vehicle without RI (Re-inspection) photos, which is cleared as per mail dated 18.4.2017 placed by the complainant. After many follow ups with the insured through phone, the letter dated 4.5.2017, was sent to the insured for cooperating to the surveyor and submission for required documents to process the claim i.e. policy copy, chassis Number Photos, Insured signature Proof, Claim form duly filed and signed by insure, RC, DL of driver, Route permit, fitness certificate, repair bills and claim discharge voucher, produce of vehicle for repair and final survey. But the complainant did not produce the required documents to the company and did not cooperate with the surveyor. On 9.5.2017 the RI photos provided by the complainant but the said photographs were not completed and were not with salvage and claim had not processed due to required documents shot provided by the complainant till date. As per documents and initial photographs available, the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 48,093.75 Paise but it is not the final survey amount. The opposite party is not liable to pay this amount unless the repair bills not submitted by the complainant with the reimbursement claim form and required documents as per letter dated 4.5.2017. The claim was not repudiated, it was closed for pending documents which were not submitted by the complainant for processing the claim. There is no lawful cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party. On merits, the opposite party has reiterated the stand as taken by the opposite party in the preliminary objections of the written version and all other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite party and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record initial survey report Ex. OP-1, letter dated 4.5.2017 Ex. OP-2
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record.
4 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is having bus bearing its registration No. PB-02BR-9357 which is plying Tarn Taran to Goindwal Sahib. He further contended that the bus is fully insured with the opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 9,02,500/- and premium of Rs. 76,827/- has been paid to the insurance company. The bus was having insurance policy for the period from 15.9.2017 to 14.9.2018 vide cover note No. 59995694 dated 24.8.2017 in favour of the complainant which is Ex. C-2. The said bus was plying by Gursewak Singh son of Jagir Singh resident of village Koharka and its conductor was Manjit Singh son of Sawinder Singh village and P.O. Walipur Tehsil & District Tarn Taran. The said bus was plying three times in a day and earning Rs.15,000/- per day. He further contended that the said insured bus bearing No. PB02-BR-9357 met with an accident on Goindwal Tarn Taran road while plying there on 2.4.2017 and the complainant has approached the opposite party and field staff for claim. The surveyor of the company clicked the photographs of the occurrence at the spot and complainant requested for its claim to get the bus repaired. He further contended that the surveyor of the company himself produced the bills of spare parts/ repair from the concerned workshop of Jalandhar and the complete file of claim is pending with insurance company but the opposite party has not paid any heed to it. He further contended that the complainant has got his bus repaired bearing its repair and spare parts charges from his own pocket amounting to Rs. 1,70,250/- to make it worthy to ply on road for passengers. Despite many demands made by the complainant for the claim of insurance, the opposite party has not paid any heed to settle the claim. The complainant has got his bus repaired and spent an amount of Rs. 1,70,250/- vide bills Ex.C-9 and Ex. C-10 on its repair and spare parts from his own pocket. He further contended that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by breaching the contract of insurance. The bus stopped in repair center for 22 days as such, the complainant suffered the loss of loss of Rs.3,50,000/- due to deficiency in service. The surveyor of the insurance company has seen the occurrence and has given report at the spot. Officials of opposite party had refused to pay the claim and the concerned officials have repudiated the claim leveling false allegations. As per receipt issued by Vikas Motors invoice No. 69, the complainant spent Rs. 23,250/- for spare parts and Rs. 1,47,000/- for repair of bus issued by DS and sons. He further contended that the said accident was occurred in the presence of driver of the Bus and conductor of the bus. Due to this accident, the vehicle sustained heavy loss and amount of Rs. 1,70,250/-. Official of the Opposite party manipulated the word just to save their skin and further to harass, humiliate the complainant and offered to pay only Rs. 45,000/- in lump sum and declined to pay the whole amount for damages occurred to the insured vehicle. A legal notice dated 2.12.2017 Ex. C-7 was also sent to the opposite party but no reply ever received by the complainant or his counsel. The complainant has preferred a claim but not even a single Penny was received by the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed as prayed for in the complaint.
5 Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that present complaint is legally not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Commission. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 2.4.2017 and got damages. The claim was intimated to the company on 3.4.2017 on next day of the incident and surveyor i.e. ‘Vipan Manyal’ was appointed by the company. The initial survey was done and surveyor requested to the complainant for repair the vehicle. The claim is in process and the insured/ complainant take the delivery of the vehicle without RI (Re-inspection) photos, which is cleared as per mail dated 18.4.2017 placed by the complainant. After many follow ups with the insured through phone, the letter dated 4.5.2017 Ex. OP-2, was sent to the insured for cooperating to the surveyor and submission for required documents to process the claim i.e. policy copy, chassis Number Photos, Insured signature Proof, Claim form duly filed and signed by insure, RC, DL of driver, Route permit, fitness certificate, repair bills and claim discharge voucher, produce of vehicle for repair and final survey. But the complainant did not produce the required documents to the company and did not cooperate with the surveyor. On 9.5.2017 the RI photos provided by the complainant but the said photographs were not completed and were not with salvage and claim had not processed due to required documents shot provided by the complainant till date. As per documents and initial photographs available, the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 48,093.75 Paise but it is not the final survey amount. The opposite party is not liable to pay this amount unless the repair bills not submitted by the complainant with the reimbursement claim form and required documents as per letter dated 4.5.2017. The claim was not repudiated, it was closed for pending documents which were not submitted by the complainant for processing the claim. There is no lawful cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party.
5 In the present case insurance is not disputed and accident of the vehicle is also not disputed. After admitting the insurance and accident, the opposite party was ready to make the payment of Rs. 48,093.75 assessed by the surveyor on the basis of documents and photographs available with the surveyor. It is also the case of the opposite party that it is not the final survey amount and the case of the complainant is not repudiated, rather it was closed for pending documents did not submitted by the complainant as demanded by the opposite party vide letter dated 4.5.2017 Ex. OP-2. Due to non-supply of documents to the opposite party by the complainant vide ibid letter, the present claim is pre matured. From the perusal of the file, it reveals that the claim of the complainant has not been decided so far. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant has supplied all the documents but not even a single document has been placed on record by the complainant showing that the documents as demanded vide letter Ex. OP-2 have been supplied to the opposite party by the complainant. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant.
6 The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it.
7 In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents.
8 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents as mentioned in letter dated 4.5.2017 Ex. OP- 2 for deciding the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order to the opposite party and on approaching the complaint for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite party will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite party shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of Forty Five days therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite party, the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
