| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 125 of 27-04-2018 Decided on : 13-04-2022 Mohinder Pal, aged about 59 years, S/o Mukand Lal, R/o Vill. Bhagta Bhaika, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, SCO 128-129, Rose Garden Complex, GT Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., F-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaiput (Raj), through its Managing Director/Chairman .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Mohinder Pal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.PB-29E-9665 and got it insured with the opposite parties Vide Policy No. 10003/31/16/260876 for the period from 9.9.2015 to 8.9.2016 on payment of requisite premium of Rs.31,756/- for the IDV of Rs.3,82,839/-. It is alleged that the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 5.7.2016 and in this regard, complainant got lodged FIR No.102 dated 14.7.2016 u/s 379 IPC, Police Station, Dayalpura, Distt. Bathinda. The complainant also lodged insurance claim with opposite party No.1 and furnished all the requisite formalities as the said vehicle could not be traced despite best efforts. Ultimately, the insurance claim was honoured by the opposite parties but the total amount of insurance claim i.e. Rs.3,82,839/- as per IDV was not paid rather a sum of Rs.80,000/- approx. has been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the opposite parties and this amount has not been paid despite repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant alleged that he personally visited the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about claim and he was told by the officials of opposite party No. 1, that complainant allegedly stood surety/guarantor for one Rajwinder Singh son of Sh.Balwant Singh who has purchased vehicle No. PB-29G-9963 by taking loan from Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and since the aforesaid Rajwinder Singh has failed to repay the loan amount against the said vehicle, as such the balance amount of insurance claim of the complainant has been withheld by the company in order to pressurize the complainant to clear the loan of aforesaid Rajwinder Singh although the complainant never stood guarantor for Rajwinder Singh son of Sh.Balwant Singh, resident of village Dyalpura Mirza for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. The complainant has no relation or concern with aforesaid Rajwinder Singh. The complainant does not know personally Rajwinder Singh and there was/is no reason with the complainant to be the guarantor of aforesaid Rajwinder Singh for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle. It is further alleged that the signatures of the complainant were obtained by the officials of opposite party No.1 on the pretext that it is merely a formality for the sake of identity of Rajwinder Singh and though Rajwinder Singh was not known to the complainant, the complainant bonafidely signed the documents on the asking of the officlas of opposite party No. 1 and now he has learnt that he has been illegally and arbitrarily shown as Guarantor of the said Rajwinder Singh even though the complainant never stood as guarantor for Rajwinder Singh. As such the complainant is not liable to pay the outstanding dues of Rajwinder Singh and the opposite parties have also no right to withheld the amount of insurance claim of the complainant. The complainant also alleged that he visited the office of the opposite party No.1 time and again and requested to pay the balance amount of insurance claim i.e. Rs.80,000/- but to no effect. The complainant also got issued legal notice upon opposite party No.1, but to no effect. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial losses, for which he claims compenstion to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay balance amount of insurance claim of Rs.80,000/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- besides Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant did not array the necessary party. It has been pleaded that complainant had already received the total claim amount under the policy as full and final and a consent letter also issued by him with his free own will. Accordingly opposite parties paid entire amount to the financier of the vehicle as per the provisions of Insurance law, hence the complainant is not entitled for any amount under the policy as alleged. Further legal objections are that the complainant has no cause of action ; intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case and the parties have to lead their evidence by examining the witnesses and the procedure under the 'Act' is summary in nature; complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by their own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that the complainant has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause of action against the opposite parties. On merits, the opposite parties admitted that they issued the policy in question to complainant along with its terms and conditions and the same are in possession of the complainant. It has been pleaded that opposite parties received claim under the policy and processed the claim as per the provisions of Insurance Law. During processing, opposite parties found that the vehicle in question was under hire purchase with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and further after receipt of report from the investigator, the underwriters of the policy found that the keys of the vehicle left in the vehicle and due to this complainant did not properly parked the vehicle. Accordingly the company offered the complainant that the company is ready to pay 90% of the IDV of the vehicle. The complainant consented for the same and given letter in this regard and thereafter payment was released in favour of the complainant and repayment of entire loan amount of the complainant was made to the financier. It has been further pleaded that after going through the entire facts of the investigation report, the opposite parties found that there is some mistakes committed by the complainant for the safety of the vehicle, so the opposite parties negotiated the matter with the complainant on payment of 90% of the IDV and he gave his free consent without any coercion. Accordingly, the opposite parties decided the claim under the policy and released the payment in favour of the complainant to the financier due to hire purchase of the vehicle of an amount Rs.3,44,555/-. After controverting all other averments of complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of certified copy of policy (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), postal receipts (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6), photocopy of FIR (Ex. C-7), affidavit dated 13-8-18 of complainant (Ex. C-8) and photocopy of reply to legal notice alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-9). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit dated 5-11-18 of Amandeep Sharma (Ex. OP-1/1) and photocopy of claim file 122 pages (Ex. OP-1/2). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, there is no dispute between the parties that vehicle bearing registration No. PB-29E-9665 of the complainant was insured for the IDV of Rs. 3,82,839/- for the period from 9-9-15 to 8-9-2016 (Ex. C-1) with the opposite parties. The said vehicle was stolen away on 5-7-2016. The complainant filed claim with the opposite parties and the opposite parties settled the claim for Rs. 3,44,555/- in favour of complainant and paid the claim amount to Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., (financer of vehicle in question). The complainant has filed this complaint seeking direction of this Commission to the opposite parties to pay balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- deducted by the opposite parties from the claimed amount/IDV of vehicle. The version of the complainant is that opposite parties have deducted this amount on account of treating/considered him as guarantor of loan of vehicle of Rajwinder Singh son of Sh.Balwant Singh, resident of village Dyalpura Mirza, whereas he has no relation with said Rajwinder Singh. But the complainant has not brought any evidence on file to prove these allegations. The pleading of the opposite parties is that the this deduction is on account of gross negligence on the part of complainant as the insured vehicle of complainant remained parked unattended for more than one month and starting key was left in the ignition and window locked from outside. To prove their version, opposite parties have placed on file complete claim file (Ex. OP-1/2). A perusal of page No. 94 to 97 of this file reveal that complainant himself admitted and given in writing to the opposite parties that the vehicle in question was being driven by his driver Harbans. The said driver after completing the wheat season, parked the vehicle in the plot of Jagmohan, MC on 25-5-2016 at 6.00 p.m. after locking the said vehicle and went to his residence. Due to injuries to complainant, he could not went to see the said vehicle. On 5-7-2016 (more than one month) when he went there, he found that vehicle was missing. The complainant has admitted that starting key was in ignition and the door was locked from outside. Thereafter, complainant lodged FIR on 14-7-2016 i.e. near about two months of incident. The complainant himself has admitted his negligence of leaving the starting key in ignition and he did not even check the vehicle for more than one month. Page 26 of Ex. OP-1/2 is the consent letter duly signed by complainant wherein he has agreed for the total loss settlement to the tune of Rs. 3,44,555/- as full and final. Thus, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in settling the claim of the complainant on the basis of 90% of the IDV keeping in view the negligence committed by complainant in leaving the parked vehicle unattended for more than a month and further leaving ignition key in the vehicle. Moreover, FIR in this case is not prompt rather after near about two months of incident. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 13-4-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
