DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/33/2019

Date of Institution : 04.04.2019

Date of Decision : 04.11.2019

Pooja Minhans aged about 35 years wife of Sh. Sampuran Singh, resident of Village Dallowal, Post Office Ghagra, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur now at No. 920020265 HC/GD Sampuran Singh, ADM-Coy 26 Bn, ITBP Type-II, House No. 50, Post Office Baddowal, District Ludhiana.                      …Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. And Head Office: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600040 through its Managing Director. 

2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jallandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. PS Kaushal counsel for complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite parties. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3. Smt. Manisha : Member

 (ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Pooja Minhans has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The brief facts of present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant got her truck insured from the opposite party No. 1 who issued an insurance cover note to complainant after receiving the premium and on the basis of which insurance policy No. 1105003115N100029196 for the period from 20.5.2015 to 19.5.2016 was issued by the opposite parties.   

3. It is further alleged that on 3.5.2016 the truck of the complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged and matter was reported to police authorities of Police Station City Barnala on the same day. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties who appointed surveyor and relevant documents also handed over to said Surveyor but after some time some other Surveyor Sh. Vishal Saini was appointed who demanded same documents so complainant handed over the photocopies of the documents to the second Surveyor as original documents already submitted to the first Surveyor. It is further alleged that due to mistake of police the name of the driver was mentioned as Des Raj son of Vishnu Dass whereas the name of the driver of the complainant's truck was Amandeep Singh son of Tarsem Singh whose driving license was already handed over to Surveyor and copy of FIR was also handed over to him.  

4. It is further alleged that the complainant has spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/- for repairing the said truck. The opposite parties have not finalized the claim of the complainant even after the elapse of two years and seven months which caused great hardship to him. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties on 8.1.2019 but even then claim of the complainant was not finalized by them which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to disburse a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 3.5.2016.  

2) To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and  harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

5. Upon notice of complaint, opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds of no locus standi or cause of action and period of limitation. It is further objected that truck No. PB-07-AS-6587 was loaded with iron rods from Indore to Sri Nagar and when alleged truck reached near Free Eye Hospital, Raikot road, Barnala due to arrival of stray cows in front of truck the driver of Des Raj son of Bishan Dass who drive the said vehicle applied breaks on the truck who went out of control and struck in a wall and electric pole so DDR No. 24 dated 6.5.2016 has recorded at Police Post, Industrial Area, Barnala but later on same DDR was recorded by Sampuran Singh husband of the complain which was informed by his driver Amandeep Singh. It is further submitted that as per MHC, PPIA, Barnala informed that as per their Roznamcha DDR No. 24 regarding accident taken place to vehicle No. PB-07-AS-6587 was recorded by Amandeep Singh but in Khana No. 2 the name and parentage of previous informant was seems to be erased and in its place name of Amandeep Singh was written. Further, regarding this accident an FIR No. 222 dated 29.6.2016 also registered against unknown driver of vehicle No. PB-07-AS-6587 on the complaint of Avtar Singh. Further, the complainant violated the policy conditions so also the complaint is liable to be dismissed as Des Raj son of Bishan Dass resident of Village Sahora Kandi the driver of truck of the complainant was not holding any effective and valid driving license at the time of alleged accident, so opposite parties are not liable to pay any claim to the complain. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and complainant not submitted the complete documents despite repeated reminders of the opposite parties so the claim file of the complainant was closed as No Claim. 

6. On merits, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant purchased the policy from the opposite party No. 2 for his truck No. PB-07-AS-6587 for the period from 20.5.2015 to 19.5.2016. Further, the opposite parties repeated all the submissions mentioned in the legal objections so there is no need to repeat the same here. However, it is submitted that as per report of Surveyor at the time of alleged accident Des Raj son of Bishan Dass was driving the alleged vehicle who was cleaner of the vehicle and not possessed any valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. It is further submitted that with the connivance of local police in the roznamcha in Khana No. 2 the name and parentage of previous informant was seems to be erased and name of Amandeep Singh was written. Rest of the submissions are repeated by the opposite parties as mentioned in the legal objections and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.  

7. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8, copy of challan form Ex.C-9, copy of legal notice  Ex.C-10, copy of postal receipts Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-13, copy of temporary RC Ex.C-14, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-15, copy of driving license Ex.C-16, copy of DDR No. 24 dated 5.5.2016 Ex.C-17, copy of list of witnesses Ex.C-18, copy of FIR dated 29.6.2016 Ex.C-19, copy of memo regarding handing over the RC PB-07-AS-6587 Ex.C-20, copy of memo regarding handing over permit Ex.C-21, copy of memo regarding handing over cover note Ex.C-22, copy of memo regarding handing over the license of Amandeep Singh Ex.C-23, copy of driving license of Amandeep Singh Ex.C-24 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-1, copy of letter dated 18.1.2016 Ex.OP-2, copy of motor OD claim note form Ex.OP-3, copy of Surveyor report of BL Goyal dated 16.5.2016 Ex.OP-4, copy of private detective and investigator Amrik Singh report dated 23.9.2016  Ex.OP-5, copy of DDR No. 24 dated 6.5.2016 from Des Raj son of Vishnu Dass Ex.OP-6, copy of DDR No. 24 dated 6.5.2016 from Amandeep Singh son of Tarsem Singh Ex.OP-7, copy of report investigator Amrik Singh dated 1.11.2017 alongwith statement of complainant, Des Raj, Amandeep Singh Ex.OP-8, copy of letter dated 16.11.2017 Ex.OP-9, copy of legal notice dated 8.1.2019 Ex.OP-10, copy of letter dated 7.3.2019 Ex.OP-11, affidavit of Baldev Singh Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

10. The first objection of the opposite parties is that the present complaint is barred under the provision of Limitation Act as the same has been filed after the lapse of limitation period of two years. To rebut the same we have relied upon copy of letter dated 7.3.2019 Ex.OP-11 issued by Chandigarh office of the opposite parties to opposite party No. 2 which is also exhibited by the opposite parties so in our view lastly the cause of action arose to the complainant was on 7.3.2019 the date of this letter, so the present complaint is within the period of limitation.

11. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 on the record. She deposed in her affidavit that the truck in question insured from OP no.1 through OP no.1 and OPs inspected the truck before insuring the same and issued insurance cover note to her after receiving the premium amount for the said purpose on the basis of which insurance policy no. 1105003115N100029196 for the period from 20.05.2015 to 19.05.2016 was issued to her. She alleged that on 03.05.2016 the said truck met with an accident and badly damaged and matter was reported to the police authorities of the police station city Barnala on the same day i.e. 03.05.2016. The truck was badly damaged in the accident and OPs deputed surveyor B.L Goyal but after some time Sh. Vishal Saini Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by OPs, who demanded some documents from complainant but she was unable to hand over some documents to the second surveyor and handed over photocopies of the documents. She alleged that due to mistake of police the name of the driver was mentioned in DDR as Des Raj son of Vishnu Dass but name of the driver is Amandeep Singh son of Tarsem Singh. She has spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/- for repairing the said truck. Though a period of more than two years and seven months had elapsed but her claim had not been finalized. Ex.C-2 is insurance policy. Ex.C-3 is copy of receipt for payment of Rs. 49,700/-. Ex.C-4 is copy of receipt for payment of Rs.14,650/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of list of repaired items for payment of Rs. 4,572/- issued by Arora Old Motors. Ex.C-9 is copy of challan in FIR No. 222 dated 29.06.2016 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC Police Station City Barnala. Ex.C-10 is copy of legal notice dated 08.01.2019. Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 are postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-14 is copy of temporary registration certificate. Ex.C-15 is copy of insurance cover. Ex.C-16 is copy of driving license. Ex.C-17 is copy of DDR no. 24 dated 05.05.2016. Ex.C-18 is copy of list of witnesses. Ex.C-19 is copy of FIR dated 29.06.2016. Ex.C-20 is copy of memo regarding handing over the RC. Ex.C-21 is copy of memo regarding handing over the permit. Ex.C-22 is copy of memo regarding handing over the cover note. Ex.C-23 is copy of memo regarding handing over the license of Amandeep Singh. Ex.C-24 is copy of driving license of Amandeep Singh and closed the evidence.

12. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs tendered in evidence copy of insurance policy as Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-2 is copy of letter dated 18.01.2016. Ex.OP-3 is copy of motor OD claim note form. Ex.OP-4 is copy of surveyor report of Sh. B.L Goyal dated 16.05.2016. Ex.OP-5 is copy of report of investigator Amrik Singh. Ex.OP-6 is copy of DDR no. 24 dated 06.05.2016 from Des Raj. Ex.OP-7 is copy of DDR no. 24 dated 06.05.2016 from Amandeep Singh. Similarly, we have examined other documents Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-12 placed on  record.

13. From perusal of pleadings of the parties and after going the entire record of the case, it has been established that the truck in question was insured from OP no.1 through opposite party No. 2 and OPs inspected the truck before insuring the same and on the basis of which, insurance policy bearing no. 1105003115P102071858 for the period from 20.05.2015 to 19.05.2016 was issued by OPs to complainant. On 03.05.2016, the truck in question met with an accident and was badly damaged and matter was reported to the police authorities of police station City Barnala on the same day i.e. 03.05.2016. The surveyor was also deputed by OPs but claim of the complainant had not been finalized. The grievance of the complainant is that her claim was not finalized by OPs till date despite handing over all the relevant documents to OPs. She also alleged that she spent Rs. 6,00,000/- for repair of the accidental vehicle. On the other hand, OPs denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant in her complaint. 

14. It is crystal clear that the truck in question was driven by Amandeep Singh at the time of accident, this fact is proved from copy of challan Ex.C-18 and copy of FIR Ex.OP-7 on the record. In the statement of complainant Pooja Manhas owner of the truck in question also mentioned that the truck in question was driven by Amandeep Singh at the time of accident of the vehicle. Ex.C-24 is copy of driving license of Amandeep Singh on the record, which is issued by District Transport Officer Hoshiarpur. In this class of vehicle mentioned as Light Motor Vehicle Non-Transport, Light Motor Vehicle Transport Goods, Transport Vehicle M/HMV (Regd. Chassis)-Goods. The accident of the truck of complainant took place on 03.05.2016, in which it was badly damaged, and matter was reported to the police authorities of police station city Barnala on the same day i.e. 03.05.2016. The complainant also lodged a claim with OPs and Sh. B.L.Goyal Surveyor was deputed as spot surveyor and on that time all the relevant documents were handed over to the said surveyor but after some time Sh. Vishal Saini Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by OPs, who demanded some documents from complainant. As the complainant handed over the original documents to first surveyor, hence he was unable to hand over the same documents to the second surveyor but complainant handed over photocopies of the said documents to OP’s surveyor Vishal Saini. But due to mistake of police authorities the name of the driver was mentioned in the DDR as Des Raj son of Vishnu Dass though the name of the driver of the complainant’s truck was Amandeep Singh son of Tarsem Singh, this fact is proved from copy of challan Ex.C-18 and copy of FIR Ex.OP-7 which are placed on the record. The currency period of the policy valid from 20.05.2015 to 19.05.2016 and accident took place on 03.05.2016, therefore, it is clear that the accident took place during the currency period of the policy. Therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy OPs are liable to pay the same. It has also been held by National Commission New Delhi `in M/s V.K. Karyana Store Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2014(3) CLT Page 47 that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. The High Court referred to its own judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.C. Subramanyam MANU/KA/0945/2012 : ILR 2012 KAR 5241 and held that the Supreme Court directed the insurance company to make payment to the claimants. The OPs are deficient in not finalizing the claim of the complainant. Similarly, the reliance has been placed on case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. Usha Yadav and others reported in 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that insurance companies are only interested in earning premiums and find ways to decline the insurance claim. All the above cited cases of the Hon'ble Higher Authorities are fully applicable in the present case. 

15. This fact is clear that the accident took place during the currency period of the policy and at the time of accident Amandeep Singh driving the vehicle. His driving licence is genuine one and this fact is clear from driving licence Ex.C-24 on the record which is issued by District Transport Officer Hoshiarpur. The complainant alleged in her complaint that she spent Rs. 6,00,000/- on repair of the accident vehicle for which she relied upon copies of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 on the record. But in our view the copies of bills Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8 are looking to be genuine one amounting to Rs. 2,63,522/- and Ex.C-7 is not having any date so this bill cannot be considered for claim. Further the opposite parties also not raised any objection against these bills. So, by not paying this amount of Rs. 2,63,522/- to the complainant the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to her and it is unfair trade practice on their part. 

16. In the light of our above discussion, we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed to pay Rs. 2,63,422/- to the complainant on account of insurance claim alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint till actual realization and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- on account of costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  4th Day of November 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

 

            (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member