Haryana

Sonipat

CC/372/2015

Naresh Kumar S/o Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Coastal Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Malik

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.372 of 2015

Instituted on: 07.10.2015                                                     

Date of order:25.04.2016 

 

Naresh Kumar son of Partap Singh, r/o village Garhi Bala, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.Coastal Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (Intermediary), 1, DLF Industrial Area, IInd Floor, near Moti Nagar Metro Station, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

2.Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., 167/18C, 2^nd Floor, Hazara Singh Building, near Ambala Club near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt. 133001.

3.Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., 1, DLF Industrial Area, IInd Floor, near Moti Nagar Metro Station, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.                              

                                       …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JP Chhikara Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 16.11.2015.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Advocate for respondent no.2 & 3.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of Santro Car no.HR10V/4615 and the same was insured vide policy no.OG-14-1207-1801-00000346 and unfortunately, the said car has met with an accident on 7.10.2013 at 7 am.  The complainant immediately reached in the police station Civil Line for lodging the police report to initiate the legal action against the driver of the truck,  but of no use. The complainant has intimated the respondents regarding the accident in question, but till date, no action was taken by the respondents on the request of the complainant, whereas the complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.117441/- on repair of the said vehicle.  The insurance company has sent a letter to the complainant on 25.3.2014 by which, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.2 and 3 have appeared, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.11.2015.

         In reply, the respondents no.2 and 3 have submitted that the alleged accident occurred on 7.10.2013 whereas intimation was given to the respondents no.2 and 3 after a delay of more-than 72 days.  The complainant has failed to submit the necessary documents  and any clarification for delay of claim intimation and thus, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 25.3.2014 by the respondents no.2 and 3.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents no.2 & 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of Santro Car no.HR10V/4615 and the same was insured vide policy no.OG-14-1207-1801-00000346 and unfortunately, the said car has met with an accident on 7.10.2013 at 7 am.  The complainant immediately reached in the police station Civil Line for lodging the police report to initiate the legal action against the driver of the truck,  but of no use. The complainant has intimated the respondents regarding the accident in question, but till date, no action was taken by the respondents on the request of the complainant, whereas the complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.117441/- on repair of the said vehicle.  The insurance company has sent a letter to the complainant on 25.3.2014 by which, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that the alleged accident occurred on 7.10.2013 whereas intimation was given to the respondents no.2 and 3 after a delay of more-than 72 days.  The complainant has failed to submit the necessary documents  and any clarification for delay of claim intimation and thus, his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 25.3.2014 by the respondents no.2 and 3.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents no.2 & 3.

 

         During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record the copy of application (Marked as JN) which was allegedly written by him to the SHO PS Civil Line, Sonepat.

 

         But the perusal of the same itself shows that this application bears no stamp and no name of the official or officer who received this application.  This application creates suspicion in the mind of this Forum.  This application is manipulated by the complainant himself to cover the delay, because the DD no.14 was lodged by the complainant with PS Civil Line Sonepat on 6.4.2014 i.e. after a period of about 180 days.  In our view, the complainant cannot get the benefit of the document JN produced by him before this Forum during the course of arguments. Rather the production of this document JN by the complainant, has create some suspicion in the mind of this Forum.  The respondents no.2 and 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is delay of more-than 72 days in giving intimation to the insurance company regarding the accident.  Further the complainant has failed to prove the inordinate delay of 72 days on his part.  Further the perusal of the document marked as JN shows the freshness of the paper, how fresh it is though it bears the date as 7.10.2013.  In our view, it might have been manipulated by the complainant himself to get undue advantage for the reasons best known to him. In our view, if the complainant was fair and honest on his part, then he must have moved an  application for examination of the person who has received the said manipulated application marked as JN.  Thus, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he has tried to mislead the Forum by producing the manipulated application marked as JN before this Forum.   Further the perusal of the record available on the case file shows that the respondent no.2 and 3 have written many letters dated 27.12.2013, 7.1.2014, 17.1.2014, 29.1.2014, 14.2.2014, 25.2.2014, 13.3.2014 and 25.3.2014, but till date, none of the letter was responded to by the complainant and ultimately the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondents no.2 and 3 vide letter dated 25.3.2014  and the action taken by the respondents no.2 and 3 in the matter of the complainant is legal and perfectly justified since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs since it has no merit.

 

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati)                       (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                         President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                               Sonepat.

 

Announced 25.04.2016