CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 719/2010
Shri Ram Kishan Chauhan
R/o RZ-124-A Ram Chowk
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045 ……Complainant
Versus
IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager
Office at F.A.I. Building
10., Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110067 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.12.10 Date of Order : 19.09.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was having a vehicle bearing No.DL-1VA-5785 make Swaraj Mazda Mini which was insured by the OP for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- vide policy No.42838193 for the period from 23.05.2009 to midnight of 22.05.2010. On 29.03.10 the vehicle met with an accident which was repaired by M/s Crown Sales Corporation, Meerut, U.P., who charged Rs.22,286/- for repairing. Some parts were not available with M/s Crown Sales Corporation and the same were purchased from Asiatic Agencies, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi for an amount of Rs.40,907/-. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.85,000/- in all for repairing his vehicle. He submitted his claim and OP deputed Mr. Girish Kumar Goel and Mr. Ajay Sharma as Surveyor and Investigator. They took all the documents from him including all the bills. On 07.10.2009 he received a letter from OP informing him that a claim of Rs.32,000/- has been passed after deducting depreciation as per rules. According to the complainant, the vehicle was insured with the OP and OP cannot deduct so much amount on account of depreciation and he has genuine bills which were paid by him for repairing of the same. The Complainant has prayed as under:-
- To direct the OP to pay to the Complainant the entire claim amount of Rs.85,000/- alongwith interest till its realization.
- To direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental, physical and financial harassment to the Complainant including cost of litigation.
When no one appeared on behalf of the OP, the OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.05.11.
Complainant filed his exparte evidence and written arguments.
We have heard the submissions of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has not cared to mark exhibit nos. or annexure nos. on the corresponding documents.
Complainant placed on record a copy of insurance policy showing that he was having a vehicle bearing No.DL-1VA-5785 make S. Mazda Mini. The same was insured by the OP for the Insurance Declared Value of Rs.6,50,000/- and the policy was valid from 23.05.2009 to midnight on 22.05.2010. On 29.03.10 the vehicle met with an accident. Complainant has placed on record receipt dated 02.04.10 of Rs.22,286/- issued by M/s Crown Sales Corporation, a invoice dated 30.04.10 for an amount of Rs.40,907/- issued by the Asiatic Agencies, a receipt dated 28.04.10 of Rs.40,000/- for repairing of chassis, a receipt dated 29.03.10 of Rs.3,000/- issued by Raju Brake Down Service for towing the vehicle to the workshop, a receipt dated 27.04.10 of Rs.2,338/- issued by Vinod Traders, a receipt dated 03.05.10 of Rs.840/-, a receipt dated 04.05.10 of Rs.565,11 /- issued by Rafiq Bus Body Maker, a receipt dated 04.05.10 of Rs.6,425/- issued by Neha Enterprises and receipt dated 24.04.10 of Rs.5625/- issued by S. L. Enterprises. These bills are for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- approx.
The Complainant had not filed any documentary proof regarding claim submitted by him to the OP but he has submitted the bills of different dates for repairing the vehicle. It is not clear whether the Complainant had submitted all the bills together to the OP or separately for claim. The OP vide letter dated 07.10.10 informed him that as per the surveyor report the Complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.32,000/- after deducting deprecation and excess clause. The OP has forwarded a voucher to the Complainant and requested him to sign the discharge voucher to enable them to provide him with the claim cheque but it is not clear from the complaint whether the Complainant had received an amount of Rs.32,000/- from the OP or not. Hence, it is not proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complaint stands dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.09.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
19.8.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
