Haryana

StateCommission

A/486/2016

VARDAN FORE AND TRAVELS - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SUKHDEEP PARMAR

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          First Appeal No.    486 of 2016

Date of Institution:  30.05.2016

Date of Decision:    29.08.2016

 

 

M/s Vardan Forex and Travels, situated at LGF NK, Tower, G.T. Road, Panipat through its partner Surender Garg.

Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      IFFCCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, c/o Globe Toyota Globe Automobiles Private Limited, Village Karhans, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.

 

2.      IFFCCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, situated at IFFCO House, 3^rd Floor, 34, Nehra Place, New Delhi -110019 through its Assistant Manager (Claims)/Authorized Person.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

      

 

Present:     Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the appellant

                   Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the respondents

                    

                            

O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIALMEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated May 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in limine.

2.      Complaint was filed with the averments that M/s Vardan Forex and Travels-complainant owned car Toyota Etios GD bearing No.HR06AD-1874, which was insured with IFFCCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited- opposite parties.  The car met with an accident on December 03^rd, 2015.  The complainant spent Rs.1,72,079/- on the repair of the car.  Claim being filed, was repudiated as ‘No Claim Bonus’ was wrongly claimed.   

3.      The complaint was dismissed at the admission stage observing that complainant wrongly claimed ‘No Claim Bonus’. 

4.      Whether the complainant claimed ‘No Claim Bonus’ or not and as to whether he rightly claimed or wrongly claimed, is a question of fact, which can only be decided by calling the other party and granting opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence and could not have been decided at the admission stage.    

5.      In view of above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside. The case is remitted to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on September 22^nd, 2016.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 29.08.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

UK