DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.75 OF 2013.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 21.3.2013.
DATE OF ORDER: 25.5.2015.
Pardeep son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of village Kithana, district Kaithal (Haryana). ………Complainant.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (A Govt. of India Undertaking) through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Nehru Park, Circular Road, Bhiwani.
………Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
BEFORE: Shri Rajesh Jindal, President,
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri Rishi Bhan, Adv. For complainant.
Shri M.L.Sardana, Adv. For Opposite Party.
ORDER:-
RAJESH JINDAL, President:
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 4.10.2011 he had purchased a Santro Car bearing registration No.HR-99KL-1385 and the same was duly insured from the opposite party vide insurance policy bearing No.261202/ 31/2012/3805. Unfortunately, the above said insured vehicle was hit by unknown person while it was duly parked in a Hotel and badly damaged. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was repaired from Raghu Hundai, Bhiwani and Rs.62891/- was paid vide invoice No.201103627 dated 29.11.2012. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with Opposite Party but his claim was repudiated on false grounds. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that on receipt of information regarding the alleged accident the surveyor was appointed to assess the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant. It is submitted that the surveyor of the company after investigation submitted his report dated 5.1.2012 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.46590.17 paisa. However, the claim of the complainant was recommended as “No Claim” because on the date of accident the complainant was having only temporary registration number of the vehicle i.e. No. HR-99KL-1385 which was valid up to 3.11.2011, even he did applied the registration number of the alleged vehicle. It is also submitted that the complainant was written letter dated 29.8.2011 to clarify the position within 15 days and he submitted his reply to the above said letter which was found not satisfactory and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 17.9.2012. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of RC, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Policy. Annexure C3 Photostat copies of Cash Memo, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of letter dated 17th Sept. 2012, and Annexure C5 Photostat copy of DL. Annexure C6 Photostat copy of legal notice along with affidavit dated 17.1.2013.
4. In reply thereto, the OP has placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of Survey Report, Annexure R2 Photostat copy of letter dated 29th June, 2012, Annexure R3 photo stat copy of Temporary Registration Certificate, Annexure R4 Photostat copy of policy along with affidavit of Shri S.K.Gupta, Manager, OIC, Rohtak.
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 has also referred the written arguments filed by the complainant. In support of his contention he has referred judgment of Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in case titled as Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Versus New India Assurance Company & Otrs. cited as I (2007) CPJ page 391.
7. Learned counsels for Op reiterated the contents of the reply. He has also referred written argument filed on behalf of OP. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 17.9.2012. In support of his contention he has referred judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case cited as Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus B.A.Lokesh Kumar cited as III(2013) CPJ 528 (NC) and Supremje Court of India in case cited as Narender Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Otrs. cited as IV (2014) CPJ 11(SC).
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. The facts which are not disputed are that on the date of accident the temporary registration certificate period was expired. The temporary certificate registration was valid up to 5.11.2011 and the accident was occurred on 11.11.2011 after the expiry of temporary registration. The complainant got his vehicle in question registered with the concerned registration authority on 6.4.2012 and even on the date of accident he had not applied for registration of the vehicle with the concerned registration authority.
9. The facts narrated above are similar to the facts of Narender Singh”s case (Supra). In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Narender Singh”s cases (Supra), we hold that the repudiation of claim of the complainant by the OP is justified. Resultantly, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid on merits. No order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 25.5.2015. (Rajesh Jindal) President, District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member
