Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1078/2014

G.P THAREJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-1078/14

In the matter of:

Sh. G.P. Thareja,

S/o Late H.L. Thareja,

R/o B-201 Priyadarshini Apartment, 17,

Patparganj IP Extension, Delhi.

 

         Complainant

 

Vs

 

New India Assurance Company

87, MG Road, Fort,

1.  

 

Also at 10^th Floor, Core-1, Scope Minar,

Laxmi Nagar District centre, delhi-110092

 

                                                                                                                      Opposite Party

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-17/12/2014

                                                                                    DATE OF ORDER       -23/12/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant is a retired Judicial Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services owned    a Swift Desire Car No. DL 13 CA 0310 which was insured by the respondent from 12/09/2011 to 11/09/2012 vide policy No.3203013111010009288. The son of the complainant Sh. Jay Thareja holding the valid license, met with an accident due to tyre burst on 11/11/2011 near ITO Bridge Vikas Marg. The vehicle was thereafter taken to Bugga Link Motors on 13/11/2011. The estimate prepared by the workshop intimated to the respondent and the claim was submitted. Respondent sought from the complainant cash memo/invoice and payment receipt along with a cancelled cheque and bank account details which were duly provided but no action was taken by the respondent for processing the claim, no information was given despite repeated enquiry and reminders and legal notice. This all amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed for direction to the respondent to pay the claim of Rs.28,207 with 12% interest and the other relief this court may deem fit.

            Reply was filed by the respondent wherein it has been alleged that the M/s Kapil Kumar and Company investigator and assessor was deputed to assist the claim and submit the survey report. He assessed the claim at Rs.15,000/-. On 19/12/2012, the complainant was requested to send the cash memo/invoice along with payment made but these documents were not provided despite reminder and further notice. It was also stated that the documents should be submitted within 7 days time and if not then the respondent will be forced to close the file. The complainant submitted on 16/01/2012 cash receipt and bill both dated 22/11/2011. By passage of time, the file of the complainant was closed. Then this was due to complainant negligence. As such the complainant cannot claim deficiency in service on the part of Respondent. They are ready to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs.15,000/- as per assessment made by the investigator and their investigation report.

            Both the parties have filed their affidavit and documents.

            We have heard the parties Counsels.

            As per the written statement filed by the respondent the surveyor has assessed the claim at Rs.15,000/-. This confirms the factum of accident and damage to the car. The only fact which is to be seen by this forum is as to whether the respondent could closed the claim of the complainant without due notice. The burden lies upon the respondent to prove that the notice regarding the production of the documents 11/12/2011 was ever delivered to the complainant and same is about the letter dated 19/12/2011. No acknowledgement receipt have been filed by the respondent to prove that these were ever served.

 On the contrary Sh. Thareja who is a retired Judicial Officer have stated on oath that he has provided all these documents to the respondent and his claim has not been settled. The documents which has been submitted along with the claim form clearly shows that estimate submitted by Bugga Link a Authorized Motor workshop of Maruti was paid in cash on sum of Rs.28,207/- only. The estimate and repair carried out have been shown in the job card and in the report of the surveyor. We failed to find out as to how he could deduct the amount of about Rs.12,000/- when the whole of the vehicle was covered. The respondent has not filed any documents in support of their case that item shown in the report of the surveyor were not covered by the policy of insurance. In these circumstances it was unjust on the part of the respondent to have assessed the claim on the basis of the surveyor report and their offer to settle the claim at Rs.15,000/- is nothing but contrary to policy of insurance.

We allow this complaint we direct the respondent to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.28,207/- along with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing this complaint till it is finally paid. We further award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation on account of harassment mental pain and agony and cost of litigation. Let this amount be paid within 45 days from the date of this order.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                        POONAM MALHOTRA                     N.A.ZAIDI

      MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT