Haryana

Karnal

CC/144/2024

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Chhachhia

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                                     Complaint No.144 of 2024

                                                                     Date of instt.13.03.2024

                                                                     Date of Decision:03.04.2024

 

Anil Kumar son of Sh. Pale Ram R/o VPO Ganjbarh, Tehsil and District Panipat.

                                                                                      …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-334, basement Mugal Canal Market, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2. Indusind Bank Limited, 2^nd floor, old G.T. road, Sham Nagar, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before       Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.   

                   Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

                   Dr. Suman Singh……..Member.

 

Present: None for the complainant.

 

 

(Dr. Suman Singh Member)

                 

Today the case is fixed for consideration on the point of admissibility.

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs) on the averments that the complainant had purchased new vehicle that is Belero Maxi Truck manufactured by the Mahindra & Mahindra limited from their authorized dealer which is fully insured from Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited OP-1 after paying an amount of Rs.28,939/- as premium for the period from 31.10.2022 to 30.10.2023 vide policy no.3313/034961000000. Unfortunately in the month of September, 2023 the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle got damaged. The complainant has also informed the OPs. The OP No.1 appointed a surveyor who then surveyed the aforesaid vehicle. The complainant approached opposite party and submitted all the relevant documents but despite their prior assurance they did not accede the genuine requests of the complainant. Ultimately in the last week of September, 2023, the opposite party flatly refused to disburse the claim of the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

       Argument on point of admissibility heard.

      None has put into appearance on behalf of the complainant. Position remained the same on the last two adjourned dates. As per Section 36 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the admissibility of the complaint is ordinarily be decided within twenty one days from the date on which the complaint was filed. The present complaint has been filed on 13.03.2024 and twenty one days is going to be expired.

                Further, complainant has not placed on file any documentary evidence to prove that his vehicle damaged in the alleged accident. Complainant has also not placed on file any damaged report to prove his version. Complainant has also failed to place on file, letter vide which claim of the complainant has been denied. Thus, in view of the above, at this stage, the complaint is deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed inlimine. However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint on placing the proof, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated:03.04.2024.                

              President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Suman Singh) 

    Member                    Member