BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:136 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 02.04.2013.
Date of Decision:.20.03.2017
Rajender son of Ranpat Singh, resident of village Ajitpur, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Plot No. 6, Pusa Road (Near Pillar No. 81) New Delhi 110005 through its Branch Manager, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- None for the complainant.
Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate Proxy Counsel of
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Motor Tipper bearing registration No. HR-61A-1341, Chasis No. 05529 Engine No. 58393 Model 2009 which was financed and hypothecated from Indusland Bank Ltd, Bhiwani. It is alleged that the aforesaid Tipper was got insured with the OP, vide insurance policy cover note No. 50394970 and Policy No. 3380/00321885/000/02 dated 21.08.2011 for the covering period from 21.08.2011 to 20.08.2012. It is alleged that on 20.01.2012, Tipper of the complainant met into a road accident in which the Tipper completely damaged and intimation in this regard was given to the OP for claim on account of loss caused to the said accidental vehicle. It is alleged that out of the said total amount of Rs. 86489/- on account of loss caused to the said insured vehicle, a cheque of Rs. 21500/- was remitted by the OP company on 20.03.2012 and remaining amount of Rs. 64989/- was not paid. It is alleged that the complainant contacted many a times with the official of the OP to pass the remaining amount but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant have received the amount of Rs. 21,635/- in full and final satisfaction of his claim, it does not lie in his mouth to say that any more amount is payable by the respondent company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and Mark A to Mark H alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.
5. The complainant or his counsel is not appearing since 31.08.2016 and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case. This is old case, we proceed to decide this case on merits. Arguments of counsel for the OP heard. We have gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that after getting intimation about the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant, the OP deputed independent surveyor, who assessed the loss and the OP passed the claim for Rs. 21,636/- and the same was duly received by the complainant as full and final satisfaction of his claim. The complainant also signed the discharge voucher in token of having received amount of Rs. 21,635/- as full and final satisfaction of his claim. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. The counsel for the OP relied upon the following judgments:-
I M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Nissan Electronics Ltd. 320 2014 (3) CLT of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
II Eggro Paper Moulds Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. 404 (Feb.) 2016 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
7. As per the contention of the complainant made by him in his complaint, timely intimation was given to the OP and the claim on account of loss caused to the vehicle on the spot of accident has been preferred by the surveyor to the tune of Rs. 86,489/- and the complainant got repaired the vehicle on the direction of the surveyor deputed by the OP. The complainant made a claim of Rs. 86489/- but the OP issued a cheque of Rs. 21,500/- to the complainant and the rest of the amount of Rs. 64980/- has not been paid by the OP. The complainant also got served a legal notice on the Ops in this regard.
8. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and arguments of the counsel for OP, we have examined the material on record carefully. The report of surveyor, Annexure R-3 seems to be incomplete. The surveyor in his report has assessed the loss at Rs. 28162/-, after deducting this sum amount the OP has paid Rs. 21636/- to the complainant. It is not explained why the amount has been deducted by the OP after the assessment of loss by the surveyor. No justification has come on behalf of the OP regarding deduction of the said amount from the loss assessed by the surveyor in Annexure R-3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay the balance amount after deducting Rs. 21,636/- from 28,162/-. The Ops are directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this order through demand draft drawn in favour of the complainant and the same be sent to the complainant on the address given in the complaint by registered post. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member
