BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:231 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 12.08.2015.
Date of Decision:24.03.2017
Sh. Narender aged 41 years son of Sh. Ram Singh, resident of village Barwas, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The General Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO SadanC-1, District Centre, New Delhi.
- The Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Co. Ltd. C/o Hafed District Office, SCO No. 19-20, Part-1, Sector-12, Karnal.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Pardeep Vashisth, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is sole registered owner of Mahindra Maxima vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61A-4215 chasis No. 17109, Engine No. 16767 Model 2010, which was insured with the OP no. 1 for the period from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- It is alleged that at night of 31.08.2014/01.09.2014 some known vehicle struck and damaged the vehicle of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant informed the matter to the police about the incident of said damaged vehicle and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the matter was further informed to surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the spot and prepare the surveyor report and asked the complainant to submit all relevant document. It is alleged that after waiting a period for about seven months, but no response from the OP no. 1 was received. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that though the damages noticed by the surveyor did not co-relate with the manner of accident as alleged in the complaint but even otherwise the loss assessed by the surveyor amounted to Rs. 31217/- thus the question of spending Rs. 2,03,350/- on repairs does not arise. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to R-6 alongwith supporting affidavit
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged between the night of 31.08.2014/01.09.2014 with unknown vehicle struck against the vehicle of the complainant and fled away. On 01.09.2014 a rapat was lodged with the concerned police station. The complainant informed the OP/insurance company, who deputed its surveyor who inspected the vehicle at the spot. The complainant spent Rs. 2,03,350/- on the repairs of the vehicle.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the surveyor in his report stated that the vehicle was dismantled before the survey. The alleged damage is did not co-relate the manner of accident as alleged by the complainant. He further submitted that the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 31,217/-. The surveyor’s report is annexure R-4. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Ops vide repudiation letter dated 16.02.2016 Annexure R-6.
8. We have perused the record carefully. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Ops. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 31,217/- in his report Annexure R-4. The report of surveyor is important document and cannot be brushed aside in the absence of cogent evidence contrary to it. We direct the Ops to pay Rs. 31,217/- to the complainant within 90 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise thereafter the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:24.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
