BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:440 of 2011.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 20.09.2011.

                                                                      Date of Decision:-30.03.2017

Mahatma Mansoor son of Param Sant 600 Mastana since deceased through his legal representative Charan Dass son of Shri Ram Sarup, Chela of Mahatma Mansoor, aged 45 years, resident of New Sacha Sauda Agampur Dham, Shivala Nagri, Gangwa, District Hisar.

                                                                       ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Office No. 1 Bahri Kila Road, Rohtak, District Rohtak through its Branch Manager, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

                                                                      …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12  OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

        Mrs. Sudesh, Member

        Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member

Present:-  Shri Arun Samota, Proxy counsel for

     Shri Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that the Guru of the complainant namely Mahatma Mansoor was the registered owner of Tata-407 bearing registration No. HR-39A/2897 which was insured with the OP w.e.f. 21.08.2004 to 20.08.2005.  It is alleged that in the month of December 2004, the said vehicle met with an accident and information was given to the OP in this regard.  It is alleged that the vehicle was got repaired and spent Rs. 1,55,930/- on its repair.  It is alleged that the Guru of complainant applied for his claim to the OP and fulfilled the formalities but to no avail.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, humiliation and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking  compensation.

2.                 Upon notice being issued, the opposite party contested the case by taking various preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action etc. in the written statement and on merits submitted that the complainant did not suffer any mental agony, physical harassment, humiliation and financial loss.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 Complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the complainant filed a complaint before DCDRF, Hisar.  The DCDRF, Hisar vide order dated 26.07.2011 dismissed the complaint of the complainant for lack of territorial jurisdiction.  Thereafter, the complainant filed the present complaint before this District Forum on 20.09.2011.  He further submitted that the OP is liable to compensate complainant for the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant.

6.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the claim of the complainant has been settled and a sum of Rs. 8936/-  has been paid by the OP to the complainant vide cheque dated 06.02.2011 as full and final settlement of the claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

7.                 In the light of the pleadings and arguments, we have examined the relevant material on the record, carefully.  The complainant closed his evidence on 23.02.2017 after availing a number of opportunities.  The complainant produced affidavit Annexure C-1, photo copies of documents death certificate Annexure C-2, Will Annexure C-3, Farad Jamabandi, death certificate of MC Jaipur Annexure C-4, copy of Resolution Annexure C-5, copy of FIR Annexure C-6, cover note Annexure C-7, copy of Permit Annexure C-8, certificate of fitness Annexure C-9 and copy of RC Annexure C-10.  The OP has not produced any document.  The counsel for the OP has contended that this amount of Rs. 8936/- has been spent to the complainant for the settlement of his claim as full and final payment.  The counsel for the complainant had submitted that the said claim has been paid by the OP for the accidental claim occurred in the month of December 2004.  He submitted that no claim has been paid by the OP for the loss caused in the accident dated 17.05.2005.  The complainant has not produced any document to support his version spending Rs. 1,55,930/- on the repairs of the vehicle in question.  We have also discussed, hereinabove, the document produced by the complainant. It is very strange that this case is pending for more than 5 years and 6 months but no material document has been produced by the complainant and as well as by the Ops in support of their respective contentions.  The claim of the complainant does not find any support from the material produced by the complainant on the file.  The complaint of the complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8.                 Before we part with this judgment, we would like to mention that in this case the counsel for the complainant put in appearance on 22.11.2011.  This case remain pending for a long spell of period and the OP filed a written statement on 27.04.2016 after more than 4 year and 6 months from the date of appearance of the counsel for the OP.  We have observed that generally, Insurance Companies are seeking number of adjournments in the consumer complaints for filing the written statement, without just and proper cause and delaying the proceedings of the case.  This practice of insurance company is to be stopped so we think it is a fit case for imposing the cost on the insurance company for delaying the proceedings of the case.  Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the OP which shall be deposited by the OP with this District Forum within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay Rs. 50/- for the delay of each and every day till the date of deposit of the cost with this District Forum. 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: 30.03.2017.                     

      (Rajesh Jindal)                      

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                (Parmod Kumar)                    (Sudesh)

                      Member                           Member