Haryana

Kurukshetra

16/2018

Nasib singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.16 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:30.01.2019.

Nasib Singh son of Sh. Wazir Singh, r/o Village Ghararsi, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (16/20, WEA, First Floor, near Shastri Park, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005).
2. BF0000004776 Policy Bazaar (Plot No.119, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122001).
3. Branch Manager, Oriental General Insurance (Sabarwal Market, Railway Road, near G.P.O. Kurukshetra-136118).

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 3.

                Op No.2 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nasib Singh against Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his car bearing registration No.HR07X-0031 with the Ops vide policy No.211200/31/2017/19600 for the period valid w.e.f. 17.03.2017 to 16.03.2018.  It is alleged that in the month of June-July, 2017 the said car met with an accident and the car was badly damaged in the said accident.  It is further alleged that the complainant spent Rs.17,420/- on the repair of said car.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops paid only Rs.13,310/-.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to provide the suitable claim and further to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 3 appeared before this Forum.  Ops No.1 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that after intimation of the own damage claim lodged by the complainant with the answering Ops, the answering Ops deputed an IRDA licensed independent surveyor Mr. Rajesh Chhabra, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his detailed surveyor report.  After making necessary deductions and as per terms and conditions of the policy, final liability of answering Op comes to Rs.13,310/- which has been paid to the complainant by answering Ops; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.2 did not appear today, so, the Op No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival submissions of both the parties, there is no dispute that the complainant got insured his car with the Ops for the period w.e.f. 17.03.2017 to 16.03.2018 and during the subsistence of the policy, the said car met with an accident.  The only dispute between the parties is that the complainant spent Rs.17,420/- on the repair of vehicle, whereas the Ops paid Rs.13,310/- to the complainant instead of Rs.17,420/-.  From perusal of record, it is clear that the Ops No.1 & 3 paid the amount of Rs.13,310/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant.  The Ops No.1 & 3 did not pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- which was incurred by the complainant as crane charges on 29.06.2017, copy of Laddi Crane Service, Ex.C3 is placed on the file.  So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,000/- which was incurred by the complainant as crane charges.

9.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint against Ops No.1 & 3 and direct the Ops No.1 & 3 to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Both the Ops No.1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:30.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.