Haryana

Sonipat

CC/83/2016

Rijak Ram S/o Nafe Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Malik

23 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.83 of 2016

                                Instituted on:28.03.2016

                                Date of order:23.05.2016

 

Rijak Ram son of Nafe Singh, r/o village and post office Murthal, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                          ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

Magma, HDI, General Ins. Co. Ltd. SCO-12,Sector 3, HSIIDC, near Namastay chowk, Karnal and Magma House, 24, Parka Street, Kolkata-700016.

                                    

                                          ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Surender Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent ex-parte on 03.05.2016.        

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

       

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle no.HR-10X/1763 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 15.1.2015 to 14.1.2016.  Unfortunately the said vehicle has met with an accident and the said vehicle was badly damaged and the same was got repaired from Malwa Auto Sales, Kundli and the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.94,831/- which was paid by the complainant to the said repairer vide receipt dated 16.5.2015 from his own pocket.  The respondent has sent two letters dated 28.7.2015 and 20.8.2015 which are wrong and illegal and has been issued to avoid the payment of Rs.94831/-, whereas the complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment, but of no use.  The complainant has served the respondent with legal notice dated 28.12.2015 with the request to make the payment of Rs.94831/- alongwith interest, but of no avail 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.        Notice was issued to the respondent through registered post.  But when none appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.05.2016.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the car of the complainant has met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy and the complainant has paid Rs.94831/- to Malwa Auto Sales, Kundli, Sonepat. The complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment of the aforesaid amount, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          There is nothing on the file from the side of the respondent, whereas opportunity was given to the respondent by issuing them the notice to appear before this Forum and to defend the case.  But the respondent instead of doing so, has chosen to proceed ex-parte and due to this, we have no other option except to accept the pleadings of the complaint and are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get some sort of relief against the respondent. The respondent is liable to make the payment of Rs.94831/-  to the complainant.

          The date of loss in the present case is 27.4.2015 and as per the directions of IRDA, the claim should have been settled within 45 days, which in the case in hand has not been done by the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.94831/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from 12.6.2015( i.e. after 45 days of 27.4.2015)till its realization.

          Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and be also sent to the respondent for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)      (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                 DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  23.05.2016