BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.154/14.
Date of instt.: 08.08.2014.
Date of Decision: 02.01.2015.
Amrik Singh son of Beer Singh, resident of Village Polar, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1012/11, opposite Indira Gandhi Public School Dhand Road, Kaithal Haryana through its Branch Manager vide policy No.83283601 valid w.e.f. 14.03.2013 to 13.03.2014.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party already exparte.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his truck bearing No.HR-69-6006 with the Op vide policy No.83283601 valid w.e.f. 14.03.2013 to 13.03.2014. It is alleged that on 09.06.2013, the above-said vehicle met with an accident on 09.06.2013 on Riwari-Jajjhar road near Gokal Garh T-point towards Jhajjar side and the said vehicle was badly damaged in the said accident. It is further alleged that the intimation regarding accident was given to the Op and loss of damaged truck was assessed by Deepak Grover-Loss Assessor and surveyor of the company. It is further alleged that the claim was duly lodged and all the requisite documents were also supplied with the Op as per their demand. It is further alleged that several requests were made by the complainant but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 18.09.2014.
3. Complainant tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and documents Ex.C1 to C11 and closed evidence on 03.11.2014.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his truck bearing No.HR-69-6006 with the Op vide policy No.83283601 valid w.e.f. 14.03.2013 to 13.03.2014. On 09.06.2013, the above-said vehicle met with an accident on 09.06.2013 on Riwari-Jajjhar road near Gokal Garh T-point towards Jhajjar side and the said vehicle was badly damaged in the said accident. The intimation regarding accident was given to the Op and loss of damaged truck was assessed by Deepak Grover-Loss Assessor and surveyor of the company. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of policy (Ex.C1), copy of RC (Ex.C2), photographs of damaged vehicle (Ex.C3 to C9), copy of FIR (Ex.C10) and copy of D.L. (Ex.C11). Whereas, on the other hand, the Op did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte. So, we are of the considered view that the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant. The complainant has produced the bills amounting to Rs.1,03,400/-.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Op to pay Rs.1,03,400/- subject to salvage value and depreciation of the vehicle to the complainant and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. 02.01.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
