BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.82 of 2011
Date of Institution : 4.4.2011
Date of Decision : 27.11.2015
Baba Balak Nath Shiksha Sadan, Sirsa, Kanganpur Road, Sirsa, tehsil and distt.Sirsa through its Secretary Sh.Kashturi Lal Garg..
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Ground Floor, Indosind Bank, Sirsa, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, tehsil and Distt.Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Delhi through its Regional Manager.
- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office, ‘Dare House’ 2nd Floor, 2N.S.C. Bose Road, Chenn-600 001 through its General Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he is registered owner of vehicle
TATA Winger bearing registration No. HR-57/4414, Chassis No.MBLHA-10EJ99H05351 and Engine No. HA10EA99H13499 which was duly insured with Ops for the period from 22.4.2010 to 21.4.2011 vide Policy No. 3373/00320715/000/00. In the night of 22.9.2010, when the said vehicle was parked near the school premises of the complainant, the stray cattles while fighting with each other, smashed into the said vehicle, due to which the said vehicle suffered extensive damages. On 23.9.2010, the complainant gave the information to Op no.1, who got inspected the said vehicle from its surveyor and loss Assessor. As per the instructions of surveyor as well as Op no.1, the complainant got repaired the vehicle and incurred a sum of Rs.19,863/-. Thereafter, the complainant lodged his claim with the Ops by furnishing all the required and necessary documents. But the Ops vide letter dt. 10.12.2010 closed the claim of complainant as “NO CLAIM”, which is totally false and baseless. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Simple case of opposite parties, in their reply, is that the complainant did not park the vehicle within the boundary of the school and it was parked there as unattended. Thus, the complainant himself is wrong doer and no benefit can be given to him. The complainant parked the vehicle against the traffic rules. Vide letter dt. 10.12.2010 concerned occupant and owner of the vehicle were informed that they have not provided the requisite documents, so to consider the claim as such, the matter has been proceeded as No Claim, which is legal and there is no deficiency in service. Rest of the averments have been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.P1-affidavit of Sh.Kasturi Lal Garg, Secretary; Ex.P2-Resolution; Ex.P3-legal notice; Ex.P4 and Ex.P5-postal receipts; Ex.P6-acknowledgement; Ex.P7-registered letter; Ex.P8-repudiation letter; Ex.P9-registration certificate; Ex.P10-Insurance cover note; Ex.P11-application for claim; Ex.P12-driving licence; Ex.P13-request for settlement of claim; Ex.P14-slip regarding payment of repair charges; Ex.P15-Vat invoice, whereas opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Anirudh Devraj, Manager; Ex.R2-repudiation letter.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is admitted fact that the vehicle of complainant/society was insured with respondent vide cover note Ex.P10. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was parked in the night of 22.9.2010 near the school premises of complainant and while the stray cattles were fighting, the said vehicle suffered extensive damages. It is not disputed that complainant informed to respondent about this occurrence on 23.9.2010. As per allegation of respondent matter in dispute is that, complainant has not furnished/submitted relevant documents. If we glance on the letter of complainant Ex.P13, which is sent to Regional Office of Ops at Delhi in reply of Ops letter dt. 25.11.2010, complainant had categorically stated in this letter, they have already sent these information/documents twice to Ops, it is also stated in this letter they have communicated with the employee of Ops Mr. Satwinder on their Phone no.9813440404 but no avail. Moreover, all the copies of required documents are on the file. It is general practice a person original documents submitted to Govt. agencies and kept with him the copies of the same. A gentleman could not be kept the original documents with him when he has known very well that these documents are essential for his claim. It is pertinent to mention here that all the version of complainant supported with affidavit Ex.P1
6. It is further stated that complainant submitted all the required documents to the Ops thrice but the Ops knowingly denied the version of complainant and withheld the claim amount. Complainant made so many efforts to settle his claim. First of all, he submitted the required documents to Ops and sent a legal notice to Ops through registered post vide Ex.P3, but no avail. Lastly, complainant filed his complaint in this Forum. All the Ops did not pay any heed to his grievance. It is apparent from the complaint that complainant moved from pillar to post and was disappointed at every step and ultimately, he had approached this Forum for legal redressal of his grievance. It will be great injustice with complainant if he fails to get justice, before this Forum.
7. When the occurrence is genuine, fact of documents submitted by complainant to Ops is true one. So, there is no room in this case to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant by the Ops, when all the facts are self speaking their version affirmative. The respondent are repudiated the claim of the complainant without any bonafide reason and withheld the claim amount of complainant intentionally. Hence, the said repudiation letter Ex.R2 is liable to be set-aside. IRDA in their Circular/instructions advised to insurance companies time to time to behave with consumer in soft and sober manner not imposed them unnecessary conditions/tactics. Plea of the Ops regarding parking the vehicle outside the boundary wall of school has also no force because vehicles are roadworthy and it is not possible to keep the vehicle every time in the boundary wall.
8. Claim of Rs.19863/- submitted by the complainant seems to be genuine, which is supported with documents/bill. We are unable to disbelieve the claim of complainant in the absence of any genuine reason. However, coming to the question of compensation , we are considering the claim of complainant as rounded of 19000/-. It will be justified to deduct 20% of Rs.19000/- as salvage and depreciation etc.. After deducting 20% net awarded amount to be paid to the complainant will be Rs.15200/-. Accordingly, Ops are directed to pay Rs.15200/- to the complainant within a period of two months, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the Ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:30.11.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Baba Balak Nath Vs. Cholamandlam
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 27.11.2015.
Presiding Member,
Dt.18.11.2015. D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:27.11.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
