Haryana

Karnal

CC/233/2018

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajayant SIngh Virk

14 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  KARNAL.

Complaint No. 233 of 2018

Date of instt. 11.09.2018

Date of decision: 14.10.2019

 

Baljeet Singh son of Shri Baldev Singh, resident of village Alipur Viran (60),

Agondh, Tehsil & District Karnal.

 

 

…………Complainant

Versus

1.       IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office: C/o HAFED, District Office, Ground Floor, SCO No.19-20, Part-1, Karnal through its Authorized Signatory.

 

…………Opposite Party

 

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:        Sh. Jaswant Singh……….  President.

Sh. Vineet Kaushik…………Member

Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……….Member.

 

Present:       Shri A.S. Virk, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri A.K. Vohra, Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:   

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint on 21.09.2018. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant was owner of a Swift Dzire Car, Model 2015, bearing registration No.HR-05A-3755 and the said vehicle was got insured from the opposite party vide policy No.25259807, which was valid from 26.01.2018 to 25.01.2019 by paying the premium of Rs.15,795/- and the opposite party assessed the cost/value of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,70,634/-. On 03.02.2018, the said vehicle was stolen from the complainant who had parked the said vehicle in 4 Block, Subhash Nagar Market, Ramlila Maidan, Delhi and he made his best efforts to search the vehicle but the same was not found. The complainant got lodged an FIR No.003744 dated 04.02.2018, Police Station Rajauri Garden, Delhi under Section 379 of IPC and an intimation was also given to the office of the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant lodged O.D. claim with the opposite party and also submitted all the requisite documents, forms etc, as per the requirement of the opposite party. But the opposite party has miserably failed to settle the claim of the complainant vide claim No.37381321 and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.07.2018 on account of alleged violation of condition No.4 of the policy, which clearly shows the malafide intention on the part of the opposite party. Hence the present comlaint has been filed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has filed his written reply with the averments that the present complaint is not maintainable against the respondent due to the fact that the claim of the complainant was duly processed, considered on merits and the same was not found payable due to the fact that the complainant violated the condition No.4 of the insurance policy. The complainant has intimated the answering respondent regarding the theft of said Car on 05.02.2018 regarding the theft held on 03.04.2018.

Today, the case is fixed for evidence of complainant as well as for payment of cost. However, the learned counsel for the complainant is present but as shown his reluctance to lead evidence as well as payment of cost. Persual of file shows that the case is pending for evidence since 19.04.2019 and five effective opportunities have been availed by the complainant but he bitterly failed to conclude his evidence despite imposition of cost twice. It shows that the complainant is not serious to proceed his case properly. Today, was the 6^th opportunity. In the considered view of this Forum, further adjournement for the same purpose would not be justified at it would amount to wastage of precious time of the Forum. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for non payment of cost as well as for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.10.2019

(Jaswant Singh)

 President,

   District Consumer Disputes

   Redressal Forum, Karnal,

(Vineet Kaushik)  (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

Member                   Member