BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.248/15.
Date of instt.: 16.10.2015.
Date of Decision: 10.03.2017.
Nirmal Public School, Kalayat, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal through its Principal Sh. Ankur Sharma.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Kaithal Branch, C/o Opposite Old Deputy Commissioner Residence, Karnal Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
(Op No.1 deleted vide order dt. 19.07.2016).
- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Dare House, 2nd Floor, N.S.C., Bose Road, Cheenai (India) through its General Manager.
- Sh. Hemant Kumar i.e. agent/authorized person/nominated & deputed person C/o Indusind Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Anil Chutani, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 deleted vide order dt. 19.07.2016.
Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for the Op No.2.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant school having a bus make Tata Motors bearing registration No.HR-64/7935 was got insured from the office of Op No.1 for the period valid w.e.f. 04.03.2015 to 03.03.2016. It is alleged that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,341/- to the Ops for getting his vehicle insured and a cover note No.3360276 was duly issued by the Ops against the same. It is further alleged that on 03.07.2015, the said vehicle met with an accident and information regarding accident was given to the Ops. It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the vehicle and an amount of Rs.37,000/- was spent on the repair of damaged vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared before this forum. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 filed an application on 15.03.2016 for sending the notice to correct and proper address by deleting the address of Op No.1 and ld. Counsel for the complainant had given no objection on the said application on 01.04.2016. Ld. Counsel for the complainant made statement on 19.07.2016 that the name of Op No.1 be deleted from the array of Ops being unnecessary as he had already filed an application on 19.05.2016 for impleading Hemant Kumar i.e. authorized agent of Ops No.1 & 2 as Op No.3, so, Op No.1 was deleted vide order dt. 19.07.2016 on the statement made by ld. Counsel for the complainant. Ops No.2 & 3 filed the replies separately. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct; that the complainant willfully failed to submit documents as required by the answering Op; that no claim form was submitted and no survey was got done by the complainant and no FIR/DDR was registered regarding the alleged accident; that no repair bills were submitted in the office of answering Op. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the reply stating therein that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the Op No.3 i.e. Hemant Kumar, agent/authorized person, C/o Indusind Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal as party. In fact, Hemant Kumar has no concern with Indusind Bank and denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C6 and closed evidence on 02.01.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1 and Mark-R1 and closed evidence on 16.02.2017. Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.RW3/A and closed evidence on 02.03.2017.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant school having a bus bearing registration No.HR-64/7935 and the same was insured with the Ops No.1 & 2 for the period w.e.f. 04.03.2015 to 03.03.2016 as is clear from Mark-C4, the insurance policy.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the above-said vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 03.07.2015 and the requisite information was given to the authorized agent of Ops No.1 & 2 and on his advice, the complainant intimated to the concerned officials of the Ops on the toll free number. He further argued that thereafter, the complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.37,000/-. He further argued that the officials of the Ops made an initial enquiry but did not step forward to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant and on 10.10.2015, the Ops finally refused to accede the request of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Op No.2 argued that the complainant has not suffered any claim form and no survey was got done by the complainant. He further argued that no FIR/DDR was registered regarding the alleged accident. He further argued that no repair bills were submitted in the office of answering Op. He further argued that no intimation about the alleged accident was given by the complainant, whereas another claim for the accident of the vehicle in question which had taken place on 15.10.2015 has been sanctioned and the claim of loss has been disbursed to the complainant. He further argued that in fact no accident has been taken place on 03.07.2015 as alleged by the complainant and the complainant has not proved on the file by cogent evidence that any such accident has taken place. He further argued that the complainant has also failed to prove on the file that the complainant got done the survey and submitted the claim with the Ops.
8. The complainant has placed on the file photo-stat copies of cover note, Mark-C1, bill, Mark-c2, RC, Mark-C3, insurance policy, Mark-C4, permit, Mark-C5 and survey of fitness of vehicle, Mark-C6. To prove that the alleged accident had taken place, the complainant has not placed any copy of FIR/DDR. The complainant has not placed copy of claim form submitted by him to the Op No.2 to prove that he had lodged the claim with the Op No.2. The complainant has failed to prove on the file that he informed the Op No.2 about the alleged accident and got surveyed the damaged vehicle. The complainant has also failed to prove on the file that any enquiry was made by the Op No.2, as alleged by him. The complainant has not placed any repudiation letter which could prove that the Op No.2 had repudiated his claim regarding the alleged accident. The Op No.2 has taken a specific stand that neither information about the alleged accident was given by the complainant nor any claim was submitted regarding the same. Moreover, the claim of the complainant regarding an accident of the same vehicle which had taken place on 15.10.2015 i.e. after the alleged accident, has been sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant. A photo-stat copy of the disbursement of the said claim has been placed on the file by ld. Counsel for Op No.2 at the time of arguments. So, we found force in the contention of Op No.2 that no such accident as alleged by the complainant had taken place. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on the file that the alleged accident in question had taken place and he submitted claim regarding the same to the Op No.2. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op No.2.
9. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.03.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
