BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:349 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 27.06.2013.
Date of Decision:-06.04.2017
Tejpal son of Shri Bhoop Singh, resident of village Manethi, District Rewari.
….Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ghanta Ghar Chowk near State Bank of India, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., S.C.O. No. 85-86, Sector-17D, Chandigarh through its Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: -Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had Bolero bearing registration No. HR36K-2154, chassis No. MA1PL2GBK72K50455 Engine No. GB74K82354, Mfg. year 2008 for his personal use and the above said vehicle was got insured with the Ops. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 issued insurance policy bearing NO. 400101/31/10/6100006450 and the insurance was valid from 20.11.2010 to midnight of 19.11.2011. It is alleged that on 20.03.2011 when the Bolero was being driven by the complainant suddenly met with an accident with Maruti 800 CC Car bearing registration No. HR19C-9556 and was fully damaged. It is alleged that the complainant informed the Ops about the above said accident and a survey was conducted by the surveyor of the Ops. It is alleged that the complainant had submitted his claim papers with the OP no. 2 in the month of June 2011 alongwith all the required documents, but the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the Ops despite several requests made by the complainant by visiting the office of OP no. 2. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental pain, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come with the clean hands before this Forum. It is submitted that no claim was registered by the insured regarding the allege damage of the vehicle nor has been claimed by them. It is submitted that no intimation has been received by the Ops with regard to alleged accident. It is submitted that no claim paper has ever been submitted by the complainant to OP no. 2. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with accident on 20.03.2011 with a Maruti 800 CC Car. The vehicle of the complainant was fully damaged. The complainant submitted his claim papers to the respondent no. 2 in the month of 2011 but the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the company/OP no. 2. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgment:-
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Versus R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd. I (2010) CPJ 22 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
7. Learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred because it has been filed after 2 years of limitation from the date of accident. He submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company Branch Office Chandigarh. No claim has been registered by the insured regarding the alleged claim and there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. In the context of the pleadings and arguments, we have examined the relevant material on the record, carefully. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that he has ever lodged the claim with the OP as contended by him in the complaint. There is no correspondence on the file by the OP with the complainant. The counsel for the OP has contended that the policy in question has been issued by the Branch Office at Chandigarh. The complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his contention regarding the lodging of the claim with OP. Considering the facts of the case, we have come to this conclusion that no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the OP. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. 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: 06.04.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
