Haryana

Kurukshetra

89/2018

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind bhardwaj

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.89 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.04.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 5.3.2019

 

 

Vinod Kumar aged about 46 years son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan resident of House No.1450/3, Ward No.20, Hargobind Nagar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Dr. Sahni Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite Party.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Sachdeva, Advocate for the opposite party.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vinod Kumar against The New India Assurance Company Limited, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is  registered owner of a Polo Volkswagen Car bearing registration No.HR07-S-5835 of the model 2011. The said vehicle of complainant was comprehensively insured with op vide policy No.35360231150100000779 for the period 13.05.2015 to 12.05.2016. It is alleged that on 30.4.2016 when the complainant was going towards Kamoda from Jyotisar for some personal work then suddenly the vehicle going ahead from complainant car crossed and in the meantime the vehicle which was coming behind from his car hit in his car and the car of complainant was badly damaged. The complainant informed the op regarding the accident and lodged his claim with the op and the op appointed its surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle and assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.two lacs and obtained all the required documents from complainant. Thereafter on the assurance of surveyor, the complainant got his vehicle repaired from Syndicate Motors, Kurukshetra and paid a sum of Rs.1,37,755/- and submitted the bills to the op for payment of his claim. That thereafter the complainant regularly visited to the op and asked to pay the claim but the op did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. That the act and conduct of the op amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for seeking direction to the op to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,755/- on account of repair charges and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 2.            On notice, opposite party appeared and filed reply taking main objection that complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, it is submitted that the op had appointed Shri V.K. Vashisth as Investigator to know about the fact and manner of the accident. The said investigator tried to contact the complainant, but he did not cooperate despite several telephonic calls and registered letters. It is further submitted that there was no loss of Rs.1,37,755/-. The loss was assessed by the surveyor under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Rs.39,112/. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for op has tendered affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant contended that on 30.4.2016 the complainant was going towards village Kamoda from Jyotisar for some personal work. The accident took place and car of complainant was damaged. He again argued that the complainant got repaired this vehicle from Syndicate Motors, Kurukshetra and he has spent Rs.1,37,755/- which is shown in Ex.C7 and complainant also informed to the insurance company on the same day which is proved from Ex.C6 but op has not paid the claim amount to the complainant.

6.             Learned counsel for op argued that in this case there is no FIR and DDR regarding this accident. According to their surveyor’s report which is Ex.R4, damage caused to the complainant is only of Rs.39,112/-. Ld. Counsel for op has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as UIIC Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores, 2005 (3) CLT 645, Saraf Brothers Vs. OIC & anr. 2008 (3) CLT 675, Kaur Singh vs. NIC, 2013 (4) CPJ 46 and also judgment of Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh.   

7.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record available on file and have also gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for op.

8.             There is no dispute between the parties that car of complainant was insured with the opposite party for the period 13.5.2015 to 12.5.2016. It is also an admitted fact that vehicle of complainant has been damaged in the accident and surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.39,112/- as is evident from Ex.R4. So, the opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs.39,112/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor in his detailed report. We also find support in this regard from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for op as no contrary law has been cited by learned counsel for complainant and there is nothing on file to disbelieve the report of the surveyor or that the surveyor has assessed the loss on lower side.

9.             In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.39,112/- to the complainant within a period of two months from today, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the opposite party to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:05.03.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.