BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.64/15.

Date of instt.: 09.04.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 05.07.2016.

Avtar Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of Peoda Road, Gaddar Patti Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Sadan CI District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017.

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Kaithal, Opp. Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       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 registration No.HR-64-8094 with the Ops vide policy No.87154482 dt. 24.03.2014 valid w.e.f. 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015 and he paid Rs.34,739.79 paise as premium.  It is alleged that on 20.07.2014 the above-said truck being driven by its driver Daler Singh was fallen in the pits near the road in the area of Village Taragarh at Jind-Kaithal Road and was badly damaged in the said accident.  Information regarding accident was given to Ops.  It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the said vehicle and incurred Rs.1,84,780/- on the repair of said vehicle.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops only paid Rs.42,553.75 paise only instead of Rs.1,84,780/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to pay the remaining amount of damages but the Ops refused to do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the answering Ops appointed surveyor after receiving the claim and his final survey report is Ex.R1.  As per the final survey report, payment of Rs.42,454/- was made to the complainant on 17.12.2014.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark C1 to Mark C12 and closed evidence on 01.04.2016.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.RA and closed evidence on 19.05.2016.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration No.HR-64-8094 with the Ops vide policy No.87154482 dt. 24.03.2014 valid w.e.f. 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015 and he paid Rs.34,739.79 paise as premium.  It is also not disputed that on 20.07.2014 the above-said truck met with an accident and was fallen in the pits near the road in the area of Village Taragarh at Jind-Kaithal Road.  It is also not disputed that the Ops paid Rs.42,553/- on account of damage of insured vehicle.  But according to the complainant, he incurred total amount of Rs.1,84,780/- on the repair of said vehicle.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to remaining amount of Rs.1,42,227/-.  From the record, it is clear that on receipt of information of the accident from the complainant, the Ops appointed surveyor, who gave his final survey report, which is Ex.RA.  As per the final survey report, a sum of Rs.42,454/- was payable to the complainant on account of damages to the vehicle in question and the same was paid by the Ops on 17.12.2014.  In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. So far as the remaining amount of Rs.1,42,227/- is concerned, the complainant has placed on file the photo-stat copies of the bills, Mark C5 to Mark C-12.  The complainant has not placed the original bills on the file and only placed the photo-stat copies thereof.  So, we cannot believe on the photo-stat copies of the bills. Hence, in our view, there is no force in the contention of complainant with regard to payment of remaining amount of Rs.1,42,227/-.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.05.07.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.