Delhi

East Delhi

CC/781/2014

AFROJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

16/12/2015

AFROZ HUSSAIN

VS

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

 

Heard. The short question which arises in this complaint is as to whether the Respondent No.1 was under an obligation by virtue of their policy to reimburse to the complainant the amount which has been assessed  by their surveyor for his vehicle  which had met with an accident and was repaired by the Respondent No.2. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that they withheld the vehicle since the Respondent No.1 despite their surveyor recommendation approval had not made the payment to them. The counsel for the Respondent No.1 fails to justify the action of the Respondent and their non-payment to the Respondent No.2 when their own surveyor had assessed the loss to the vehicle. Despite definite case of the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.1 has failed to file on record the Report of the Surveyor. As per the estimate prepared by the Respondent No.2, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was estimated and accordingly intimated to the Respondent No.1. It has been mentioned in the affidavit  of the complainant in para-8 that their cashless claim request was forwarded to the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 communicated to the Respondent No.2 to proceed with that claim. The Respondent No.2 accordingly repaired the vehicle and when the complainant approached the surveyor for the disbursement of the claim amount, it is stated on oath that he demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for doing the needful and since the Respondent No.1 had not paid the claim amount, the vehicle remained standing at its workshop and after three months it intimated the complainant that the vehicle had been repaired and it demanded Rs.300/day as parking charges. The question that arises is as to whether the Respondent No.1 after getting the surveyor report could withhold the disposal of the claim for such a long period. They have not disclosed in the written statement that they have ever disbursed the entire claim rather they have taken the plea that the complainant had tried to impress upon the surveyor to submit the report to his panel and thereafter the complainant created this issue. They have also raised this issue that the vehicle post repair was not made available for final survey. It has been contended that the allegations of the respondent are baseless. The complainant also moved an application u/s 13(3)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the respondents and on that application the Forum passed an order dated 10/09/2014 and directed the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- in the forum which shall be subject to final decision in this case and direction was made to the Respondent No.2 that the vehicle be handed over to the complainant post repairs in running condition and this order was complied with by the complainant as well as by the Respondent No.2. It is submitted that till date the Respondent No.1 has not passed any final order with regard to the claim and is sleeping over the claim.  The present matter agitated in this Forum reflects the apathy on the part of the Respondent No.1 and their inaction that resulted into the present litigation and harassment to the policy holders. In view of the above we allow this complaint and direct the Respondent No.1 to reimburse to the complainant the amount of the bill raised by the Respondent No.2 and also pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony which shall also include the cost of litigation. The Respondent No.2 shall not be entitled for any parking charge either from the complainant or from the Respondent No1. With the above, the petition is finally disposed of. The amount of Rs.30,000/- which has been deposited in this Forum shall be returned to the complainant after the Respondent No.1 makes the payment of the claim amount to the Respondent No.2 within 30 days from the date of this order.