Haryana

Karnal

CC/481/2019

Sukhvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S. Chauhan

24 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.481 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt. 01.08.2019

                                                          Date of Decision: 24.12.2021

 

Sukhvinder Singh son of Shri Daulat Singh, resident of Gularpur Road, V.P.O. Nissing, District Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd floor, SCO no.253, Sector-12, opp. Mini Secretariat, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2.     IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Limited Iffco Bhawan, 3^rd floor, plot no.2, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

3.     IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Limited, Iffco Sadan C-1, District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017, through its Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member

 

Present:  None for complainant.

                Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for OPs.

 

                Today the case was fixed for evidence of complainant. Neither none has appeared on behalf of complainant nor evidence on behalf of complainant has been tendered. A careful perusal of the file reveals that the written version on behalf of OP has been filed on 07.10.2019 and the case was adjourned to 25.10.2019 for evidence of complainant. From October, 2019, till today, evidence on behalf of complainant has not been produced after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities. It seems that the complainant is not interesting in pursuing his case. 

              Hence, in view the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. However, if there are any grievances of the complainant against the OP, he is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the court of competent jurisdiction.

Announced
Dated: 24.12.2021                                                               President,     

District Consumer Disputes   

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)          

     Member