Haryana

Sonipat

CC/366/2015

Manjeet Singh S/o Dalip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffico Tokiyo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vinay Pal

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.366 of 2015

Instituted on: 30.09.2015                 

Date of order: 11.04.2016

 

Manjeet Singh son of Dalip Singh, resident of VPO Purkhash, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Regd. Office Sadan, C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-17 through its General Manager.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Vijay Pal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Joginder Kuhar Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he got his car Elantra GT Deco bearing no.DL-2CAD-4214 with the respondent  vide policy no.85123461 dated 24.1.2014 and unfortunately, on 16.5.2014, the said vehicle was demolished by fire . FIR was registered with PS Ganaur and in the said accident, the vehicle was totally damaged and the respondent passed an settled amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and thereafter, the respondent transfer only Rs.2,25,000/- in the  complainant’s account. So, the complainant is entitled to get the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent.  The complainant has requested the respondent so many times in this regard, but of no use and  that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent has appeared and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the complainant has already received revised IDV (less salvage) of the vehicle in question and nothing is due towards the respondent in respect of the complainant’s claim. It is also submitted that with the consent of the complainant, they revised IDV of the vehicle from Rs.3,50,000/-0 to Rs.2,25,000/- and the complainant with his free consent agreed to settle the claim on revised IDV of Rs.2,25,000/- as per prevailing market rate of the vehicle. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the accident occurred on 16.5.2014, the  complainant’s  vehicle was demolished by fire. The respondent passed an settled amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and thereafter, the respondent transfer only Rs.2,25,000/- in the  complainant’s account. So, the complainant is entitled to get the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the respondent.  The complainant has requested the respondent so many times in this regard, but of no use and  that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as AKK Nambair Vs. Union of India  AIR 1970 Supreme Court page 652 wherein it is held that Affidavits not properly verified cannot be admitted in evidence.

          Similarly in case titled as Parkash Rai Vs. JN Dhar AIR 1977 Delhi page 73, it has been held that affidavits cannot be taken in evidence under any provision of the evidence Act and copies of such documents cannot be taken in evidence.

          We have deep respect and regard for the law of the Hon’ble Appellate Courts.  But the law on which ld. Counsel for the complainant is relying upon, is not applicable to the case in hand, because if the affidavit is deemed to be disbelieved by this Forum, then also two documents i.e. Consent Letter and Indemnify Bond submitted by the complainant in favour of the respondent are available on the file and this Forum is unable to disbelieve the same.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the complainant has already received revised IDV (less salvage) of the vehicle in question and nothing is due towards the respondent in respect of the complainant’s claim. It is also submitted that with the consent of the complainant, they revised IDV of the vehicle from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.2,25,000/- and the complainant with his free consent agreed to settle the claim on revised IDV of Rs.2,25,000/- as per prevailing market rate of the vehicle. So,  the complainant is not entitled for any relief by way of present complaint.

          After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 

          In the present case, if the affidavit dated 29.6.2015 executed by Manjeet Singh is not considered or disbelieved, in that event also, the other documents speaks against the complainant and the same does not make the complainant entitled for any further amount from the respondent.  Thus, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any further amount from the respondent insurance company and whatever the amount was paid by the respondent and received by the complainant, was as per the settlement took place in between the parties at that time.  So, at this stage, the complainant cannot get any further amount from the respondent since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in any manner.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member                     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP                              President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 11.04.2016