Haryana

Ambala

CC/395/2018

Vinod Kumar Pahwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint Case No.   : 395 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution      :    07.12.2018.

                                                          Date of decision          :    04.10.2021

 

Vinod Kumar Pahwa son of Shri. Amarnath Pahwa, aged about 48 years, resident of House No.2883, Near Sohan Lal Girls Sr. Sec. School, Kaziwara, Ambala City.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

Versus

1.       Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City.

2.       Divisional Manager, office of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

          Divisional Office SCO 97, 1^st Floor, Sector 17, Kurukshetra,

          MO Shahbad Ladwa Road, Shahbad (M) Near New Anaj Mandi, District Kurukshetra.

3.       Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited.

          Shahbad Ladwa Road, Shahbad (M) Near New Anaj Mandi, District Kurukshetra.

4.       The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 123-124, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                                        ..…..Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Shri C.M.Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri S.C.Jaswal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.  

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.4,20,000/- along with interest from the date of accident, till realization.
2. To pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of vehicle no. HR-01-AA-3609 having private car package policy no. 1126833118P102196217 issued on 16.05.2018 to mid night 15.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-. He purchased this vehicle for personal use and same was registered with Registration Authority, Ambala.  On  04.08.2018,  at about 10.30-10.45 PM he was returning from Village Laharsa within the jurisdiction of police station Sadar, Ambala  by his car. When he reached near Mandir Village Kalu Majra Ambala, all of sudden, the vehicle became out of order.  In spite of all efforts, vehicle was not started. He called his friend Rinku from Jamiyatgarh to help him to start the vehicle. Rinku tried his best to start the vehicle but could not start the same.  There is no thorough traffic on the road at the night. Complainant parked the vehicle on the extreme left side, on the kutcha road.  The complainant returned on the spot  at 6.30 Am on 05.08.2018 where car was parked in the night on 04.08.2018. He was sad to see that a unknown vehicle struck with his car and it got badly damaged. Two tyres, stereo and various parts of the car were also missing. On 05.08.2018, he informed the OPs by his mobile and also given the information in writing. The OPs deputed a surveyor, Shri Surinder Sood, to visit the spot to assess the loss. The said surveyor visited the spot and took photographs and asked the complainant to take the vehicle to the workshop. The complainant paid Rs.2800/- as toeing charges. The vehicle was parked in KBS Motors Private Limited Mahindra Rise, Village Tepla, District Ambala and they also charged Rs.15,000/- on 06.08.2018 for preparing estimate for the repair of the vehicle. OP no.3 sent the file to OP no.2 and thereafter R.P Singh was appointed to prepare the fresh report. OPs no.2 and 3 directed the complainant to lodge the DDR regarding the accident and accordingly he lodged DDR on 12.10.2018. OPs no. 2 and 3 again appointed A.S Vaish to visit the spot for verification, who visited on 13.10.2018 and again obtained documents and also recorded the statement of the complainant and Rinku. OP sent a registered AD Letter dated 26.11.2018 vide which they closed the claim file on the following grounds:-

1. In spite of letters/reminders complainant has not complied with the required papers.
2. The complainant has withdrawn his claim by giving his consent through letter dated 25.11.2018 and file closed as No Claim.

          According to investigator, car was parked un-attending and DDR was registered after two months so no investigation in this case was carried out by the police.  The complainant alleged that he has not withdrawn his claim vide letter dated 25.11.2018. Intimation was given on the date of incident and as such OPs no.2 and 3 have wrongly rejected the claim. Hence, the present complaint.                                                                   3.          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to not come with clean hands and suppressed the material fact etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant negligently parked the said vehicle without applying any safe guards. The complainant parked the vehicle at a secluded place and failed to take any caution regarding the safety of the vehicle.  DDR was lodged with a delay of more than two months after the damage of the car as alleged by the complainant. Complainant failed to supply the required documents/papers.  There was no scope for any kind of investigation by the police or the insurance company. There was lapse on the part of the complainant and claim was rightly repudiated by OPs. Rest of the averments made by the complainant were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant, affidavit of Shri Rinku Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh, resident of Village Jamiatgarh, Post office Loh-simbli, District Patiala and affidavit of Shri Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Jagan Nath resident of Village and post Office Loh-simbli, District Patiala as Annexure CA,CB and CC respectively along with documents Annexure C1 to C15 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Tajinder Singh, Admin Officer, United India Insurance, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A along with documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6  and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

6.       The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 04.08.2021, while complainant was returning from village Laharsa, Ambala, all of a sudden, his car stopped and in spite of all efforts, he could not start the same and as such he left with no other alternative but to park the same there only. On the next day i.e.05.08.2018, he found that some unknown vehicle hit his car and it was badly damaged and some parts were also stolen by unknown person. He lodged the DDR with police and immediately informed the OPs about the said incident. However, the OPs arbitrarily rejected the genuine claim of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant was asked to supply some documents but he did not supply the requisite documents. Complainant parked his car un-attended on the road at night. He lodged the DDR, after two months from the date of occurrence of the incident, as a result whereof, no investigation in this case was carried out either by the police or the insurance company. The claim filed by the complainant was not genuine and the same was rightly rejected by the OPs vide letter dated 25.11.2018.                                                      8. Admittedly, the car in question was duly insured with the OPs for the period from 16.05.2018 to 15.05.2019 vide policy document Annexure C-3/OP-6. The plea of the complainant is that his car got damaged as some unknown vehicle hit his car and some parts of his car were also stolen by unknown person. However, on the record there is nothing to substantiate this plea of the complainant. The complainant even has not placed on record the photographs to show that the car in question got damaged and some parts were missing.  In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence it cannot be said that the plea of the complainant is true or not. Even otherwise, this fact cannot be ignored that as per the complainant his car was damaged on 05.08.2018, whereas from the perusal of DDR, Annexure C-9, it is evident that complainant lodged the DDR with the police on 12.10.2018 i.e. after a delay of two months from the occurrence of the incident. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we hold that complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits; consequently, we dismiss the same. Parties are left bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.10.2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

Member                                    Member                     President