Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 8.

                                                          Instituted on     : 03.01.2012.

                                                          Decided on       : 11.03.2015.

Inderjeet Makkar son of Sh. Sant Lal r/o 999/1/25 Chiniot Colony Rohtak through power of attorney Deepak Makkar s/o Sh. Sant Lal r/o 999/1/25 Chiniot Colony, Rothak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rohtak through its Divisional Manager, Jawahar Market D. Park Model town, Rohtak.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.  

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.N.Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Smt. Usha Girotra, Advovate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle No.HR-46B-7170 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.261200/31/2010/4469.  It is averred that on 24.08.2010 the said vehicle had met with an accident and complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the accident and has lodged a claim with the opposite party. It is averred that complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.95000/- due to damage of the vehicle. It is averred that the complainant had submitted all the documents with the opposite party and completed all the required formalities and requested the opposite party to make the payment of claim amount but the opposite party has been avoiding the same on one pretext or the other and had refused to pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  As such it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.95000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is denied that the complainant has submitted all the documents and completed all the required formalities. It is averred that the opposite party through its letters dated 18.1.11, 9.3.11, 25.4.11 and 13.1.12 had requested the complainant to submit the relevant documents but the complainant instead of submitting the documents, acted in haste and threatened the opposite party to see in the Court. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed her evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed.  As per policy document Ex.C6, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party. It is also not disputed that the vehicle had met with an accident and the opposite party appointed its surveyor who as per his report Ex.R15 had assessed the total loss amounting to Rs.23300/- less excess clause Rs.1500/- but the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that despite its repeated requests vide letter Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 the complainant had not completed the formalities. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that complainant had submitted all the required documents and completed all the formalities but till today the amount of claim has not been paid to the complainant by the opposite party.  To prove his contention, complainant has also placed on file copy of policy, route permit, bills or repair, copy of driving licence and fee bill of surveyor but the claim has not been settled till date. 

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that plea for non-settlement of claim by the opposite party is that complainant has not submitted the required documents despite repeated reminders. In this regard it is observed that all the documents have been placed on record by the complainant and also served to the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 1(2007) CPJ 458 titled as Bhagwanti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. whereby Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla has held that: “Mere letter of reminder asking from party, to provide certain documents and on failure to do needful, insurer to treat claim as ‘no cliam’ does not amount to repudiation” and as per 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hyper technical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”. Regarding the quantum of loss demanded by the complainant for Rs.95000, reliance has been placed upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission cited in III(2008) CPJ 93(NC) titled Champalal Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby it is held that: “Insurance-Quantum dispute-Loss assessed by Surveyor awarded by State Commission-Amount spent on repairs claimed by complainant-Surveyor’s report to be given due weightage-Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute-Complainant free to approach Civil Court/IRDA/Arbitration-Time spent before Consumer Fora to be set off”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per surveyor report Ex.R15 i.e. Rs.23300/- less Rs.1500/- = Rs.21800/- from the opposite party.

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.21800/-(Rupees twenty one thousand eight hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.01.2012 till its realisation  and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

 9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

11.03.2015.         

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.