DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.252/2011
M/s Unique Tourism Pvt. Ltd.
Through Its Authorised Representative
Village Khekra, District-Bagpat,
Utter Pradesh – 250609. ….Complainant
Versus
M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Manager,
Jeevan Bharti Building, Tower-II,
Level-IV, 124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001
Also at:
G-11, Main Market,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110016. ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 21.07.11 Date of Order : 11.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No. UP-17-T-1605, which was insured with the OP for the period from 5.7.10 to 4.7.11 for depreciated value of Rs. 7,06,800/-. On 25.1.2011, the vehicle was met with an accident near Mayur Vihar Red Light. DD entry was also lodged with this effect vide DD No. 14 B, PS Mayur Vihar, dated 26.1.2011. The complainant also informed at the same time to the OP about the accident of the vehicle. OP appointed a surveyor, who approached the complainant in the month of February 2011 and assessed the loss of the vehicle at Rs. 1,55,000/- approx. but the actual amount paid by the complainant for repair of the vehicle was Rs.1,80,690/-. Complainant alleged that OP intentionally, physically, mentally and financially harassed the complainant by not deciding the claim with a reasonable period of time. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to pay the claim amount to the complainant as per the terms of the insurance policy along with interest @ 24% p.a., till the date of payment
- Direct the OP to pay sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the policy issuing office of the OP is situated at Divisional Office-27, C-6, Krishna Plaza, Near Sai Baba Mandir, Naya Kand-1, Indirapura, Ghaziabad, UP-201010 which is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum, hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the insured vehicle was being brought to the commercial use and hence it is not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint deserves to be dismissed out rightly on this ground alone. It is submitted that the OP on receipt of the notice for claim after about 8 days of the accident got the vehicle surveyor through its surveyor who assessed losses at Rs.91703/- but the same was subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, repeated letters were sent to the complainant seeking clarification from the insured, but the same were never replied. The letters were sent on 04.08.11, 12.12.11 & 18.02.12. As the complainant failed to submit clarification claim of the complainant was not settled and the same was closed. The OP vide letter dated 23.03.12 informed the complainant about the said closure of the claim. Hence, there is no question of any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP. There is no question of causing any physical, mental or financial harassment to the complainant as the complainant was informed about his claim being closed. OP has prayed dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP. It is stated that if the complainant did not provide the document which were with them, the surveyor/investigator must have mentioned this fact in his report which is within the possession of the OP. The complainant provided each and documents as demanded by the investigator of the OP. There is no negligence on the part of the complainant. It is also evident from the letters that the OP has created the alleged letters only with a view to harass the complainant.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. P. K. Singh, Regional Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant. No one has appeared on behalf of the OP to advance oral arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf.
We have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had insured his Mahindra Xylo Car bearing registration No. UP-17-T-1605, which was insured with the OP for the period from 5.7.10 to 4.7.11 for depreciated value of Rs. 7,06,800/-. On 25.1.2011, the vehicle was met with an accident near Mayur Vihar Red Light. DD entry was also lodged with this effect vide DD No. 14 B, PS Mayur Vihar, dated 26.1.2011
The complainant has filed the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle. We mark the same as Annexure-1 for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed copy of insurance policy valid from 05.07.10 to 04.07.11 which we mark as Annexure A-2 for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed copy of police report dated 26.01.11 which we mark as Annexure-3 for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the Motor Claim Form which we mark as Annexure-4 for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed copy of bills dated 16.06.11 and 17.06.11, amounting to Rs.1,18,640/-, Rs.54000/- and 8050/- totaling amount to Rs.180690/-, which we mark as Annexure-5 for the purposes of identification. The OP has filed the copy of the surveyor reported dated 07.07.11 as Annexure R/1 wherein the assessed amount has been shown as Rs.91,703/- The OP vide letter dated 04.08.11, 12.12.11 requested the complainant to file the documents as Annexure R/3 (Colly). The OP vide letter dated 23.03.12 informed the complainant that “we are closing your claim file, on account of the following reason:
No submission of documents inspite of reminders”.
Now the following issues to be decided are:
- Whether the policy was issued by OP at its branch at Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, UP.
- Whether the insured vehicle is a commercial vehicle.
- Whether the requisite documents were submitted by the complainant to the OP to process his claim.
Regarding point No.1 it is clear from the insurance policy that the policy was issued by the OP from branch Office at Ghaziabad and Head Office of the OP is situated at Jhandewalan, Delhi which is not within the jurisdiction of this forum.
Regarding point No.2 complainant has not controverted in the rejoinder to the plea of the OP that the vehicle is not commercial. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Regarding point No.3 the complainant has not filed any documentary proof that he had whether submitted all the documents to the OP to process his claim. Therefore, the claim is not maintainable.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.1.19
