BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.496 of 2023

      Date of Instt. 18.12.2023

      Date of Decision: 08.11.2024

Harjeet Singh aged about 40 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh resident of House No.109, Army Enclave, Phase-I, Dhina, Jalandhar Cantt., presently residing at Flat No.1002, M-Block, Jalandhar Heights-II, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager/Concerned Authority/Signing Authority, CBO-2, SCO-50, PUDA Complex, Opposite Tehsil Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar, Punjab.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a new Royal Enfield Super Meteor 650 Clestial bike on 26.06.2023 from Navyug Motors, authorized Royal Enfield Dealers, situated at Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. At the time of purchasing the same, the complainant got insured the said bike with the OP bearing policy No.233108/31/2024/912 in his name, which was valid from 26.06.2023 to midnight of 26.06.2024. The said Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule was issued as POSS Motorized Two Wheeler (5 years) bundled policy, Zone-B with UIN IRDAN556RP0004V01201819. Unfortunately, on dated 18.08.2023 at around 07.15 am the accident was held with the said bike. The intimation qua to the said accident was straightway given on the helpline number of the insurance policy. Thereafter, after following the entire legal formalities the said vehicle was sent to Navyug Motors workshop for the repair. Being insured vehicle the entire documentation which includes RC, Driving License, a picture of the Cheque of the complainant and all required documents were handed over to the concerned person for the claim. On 11.10.2023, after the repair of the said vehicle an bill of an amount of Rs.1,07,920/- being the total amount was to be paid at the workshop. It was all the duty of the OP and the concerned Royal Enfield Authority people for the intimation of the claim and with regard to the status of the claim petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the Royal Enfield Authorities kept on updating the complainant about the negligent behaviour at the part of the OP especially the surveyor namely Mr. Rajesh Khanna. No information through mail, email or WhatsApp ever been conveyed, given or any document with regard to the insurance claim never been demanded by the OP. It is the own efforts of the complainant to make the calls, to get the updates from Mr. Rajesh Khanna but the said person refused to entertain the complainant in every manner till today. From the side of the OP by showing the complete negligent behaviour no efforts of any updation to the complainant, qua to the claim has ever been made. When on dated 15.10.2023, the complainant personally visit the office of the OP, the concerned officials including Mr. Rajesh Khanna refused to entertain the complainant in any manner and never ever has given any details with regard to the claim of the complainant. The complainant has released his bike from the workshop by paying Rs.1,07,920/- according to the Invoice No.RBW/23-24/3920 of dated 11.10.2023, since then the complainant has never received a single penny from the side of the OP qua to the above said insurance policy and the negligent behaviour of the OP has caused extreme mental, physical and financial harassment to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,07,920/- of expenses incurred for repairing the above said vehicle. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the above noted complaint is not maintainable under the law and liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that the complaint is infructuous as the OP has already approved the claim of the Vehicle No.PB08 FE 2174 insured vide the Policy no.233101/31/2024/912 Claim No:230015/31/2024/00031795 subject to the policy terms and conditions and letter dated 11.01.2024 has been issued by the OP to the complainant in this regard for approval of Rs.91,876/ subject to the submission of these documents for payment i.e. Discharge Voucher and cancelled cheque for the settlement of the claim. Thus, complaint deserves to be dismissed on this short score alone. It is further averred that the complainant is barred by his own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief. It is further averred that the complainant is guilty of concealment of material facts and has not approached the Commission with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any relief. It is the prerogative and right of the OP to investigate, evaluate and verify the claim as per the policy terms and conditions after receiving the claim form along with prescribed requisites from the beneficiary and the valuable right conferred by agreement between the parties cannot be taken away by filing the instant claim. The claim has been duly evaluated and paid as per the report of the surveyor/ loss assessor. It is further averred that there is complicated question of law and facts involved in the matter and the same cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings, therefore this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle was insured and intimation of the accident was given to them. It is also admitted that the Surveyor was appointed, 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 to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved that he had purchased a new Royal Enfield Super Meteor 650 Clestial Bike on 26.06.2023. The receipt of payment to Navyug Motors has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-1 consisting of 4 pages, which includes tax invoice and other expenses and the RC has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-8. It is not disputed by the OP that the complainant got insured the bike with the OP. The insurance cover has been proved as Ex.C-2 consisting of three pages. The complainant met with an accident on 18.08.2023 while sitting on the bike. The intimation was given to the helpline number of the insurance policy. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent to Navyug Workshop for repair. The complainant has proved on record the copy of FIR registered on 18.08.2023 Ex.C-3. The complainant was treated in the Civil Hospital, PHS Jamshar Khas and MLR has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-4. He was also treated from the HP Orthocare Hospital. The x-ray reports have been proved as Ex.C-5 consisting of 4 pages, which showed and proved that the complainant had suffered injuries due to the accident. The complainant has lodged the claim with the OP alongwith all the documents including the bill of the repair amounting to Rs.1,07,920/-, which has been proved as Ex.C10. Receipt has been proved as Ex.C-6. The complainant has alleged that the OP appointed the Surveyor, but the behavior of the Surveyor was very much rude towards the complainant. It has been alleged that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim.

7.                The OPs have admitted that the vehicle was insured and intimation of the accident was given to them vide Ex.O-3, which is the motor claim intimation form. It is also admitted that the Surveyor was appointed and the surveyor report has been proved as Ex.O-5. It has been alleged by the OP that the claim of the complainant has been approved for Rs.91,876/- and separate intimation to the complainant has been issued vide letter dated 11.01.2024, therefore, the complaint became infructuous, but this contention is not tenable as the complainant had filed the present complaint on 18.12.2023. The accident occurred on 18.08.2023 and the legal notice was given to the OP vide Ex.C-11 on 17.11.2023 till then the claim of the complainant was not approved by the OP. It is on 11.01.2024 i.e. during the pendency of the present complaint, the OP has sent a letter Ex.OP-1 to the complainant that his claim has been approved for Rs.91,876/-. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that his claim has been repudiated which is wrong and illegal, but there is no document on the record to show that the claim has been repudiated by the OP nor this fact has been admitted by the OP in the written statement. The OP on the other hand has relied upon the report of the surveyor Ex.OP-5, vide which he has assessed the loss Rs.91,876/- and on 02.11.2023, the claim for Rs.91,876/- has been approved by the OP. the claim was never repudiated nor was decided and as such, the complaint is pre-mature. However, during the pendency of the present complaint, the OP sent a letter to the complainant intimating that his claim has been approved by the competent authority of Rs.91,876/-. It is proved that the complainant has been mentally harassed by the OP for not deciding the claim within the reasonable time, therefore, he is entitled for compensation.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to pay Rs.91,876/- to the complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to challenge/claim remaining amount out of Rs.1,07,920/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.  

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon          Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.11.2024                      Member                               President