Haryana

StateCommission

A/323/2014

Yogesh Khurana - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Gupta

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

7STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                             First Appeal No.323 of 2014

Date of Institution: 22.04.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 04.01.2017

 

Yogesh Khurana proprietor Maha Laxmi Polymers (India), Shergarh Road Kaithal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Ambala road, Kaithal.

2.      The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Karnal.

3.      The New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Regional office Chandigarh.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               None for appellant.

                             Shri Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

It was alleged by the complainant that he got his car bearing registration NO. HR02K-0027-Model-2008 insured from opposite parties (O.Ps.) and the insurance policy was valid from 26.06.2008 to 25.06.2009.  Four unnamed passengers were also insured on the personal accident for Rs.Two lacs each.  On 08.06.2009 the car met with an accident and was badly damaged. One Hoshiar Singh sccumbed to the injuries and two other persons were injured.  As per estimate prepared by Kanav Motor Karnal  Rs.7,03,491/- were to be spent on repairs. After taking car on superdari he spent Rs.5000/- for transporting car to Kanav Motors and Rs.10,000/- as garage charges.  O.Ps. were requested to pay Rs.7,76,855/- for repairs besides compensation qua personal accident etc, but, to no use.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that complicated question was involved in this case and the matter should be adjudicated upon by Civil Court.  He had concealed true facts from the court. As the claim was not repudiated, so no cause of action accrued to file the complaint.   Independent surveyor Kailash Chandra assessed loss to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- with the consent of the complainant. So he was not entitled for any other compensation and complaint be dismissed. Objections about jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In Short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.02.2014 and directed  ops to pay Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization  and further to pay Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the consent about settlement was given  five years ago, but, the claim was not settled by company.  Now value of salvage has depreciated so the compensation be enhanced.

5.      Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant since last three consecutive hearings. As appeal is very old and is pending since the year 2014, so there is no necessity to wait any more.   Hence arguments of only counsel for respondents are heard. File perused.

6.      As per averments of complainant in appeal and letter dated 20.11.2009, he agreed Rs.3,50,000/- as full and final settlement. When he agreed for that sum now he cannot back out of the same. Due to delay in payment learned District Forum has granted interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint.  The complaint was filed just after six months of that letter. Not only the interest the learned District Forum has also burdened the O.Ps. to pay compensation qua harassment etc.  This order will the ends of justice and there is no necessity to enhance the amount of compensation already awarded. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

January 04th, 2017                 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.