BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:180 of 2013.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 09.04.2013.

                                                                      Date of Decision:19.01.2017

Naveen Kumar son of Sh. Dalpat Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of village Jhojhu Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, near Bus Stand Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                     ...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12  OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

Present:- Shri N.P. Singh, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was the sole registered owner of a Car Tata Indigo (Marina) Model 12/2004 bearing registration No. HR-19B-4013 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No. 261204 covering the period from 14.11.2007 to 13.11.2008 for the sum of Rs. 3,70,000/-. It is alleged that on 07.09.2008, the said vehicle was brought by the complainant to a Mechanic in his workshop to get it repaired but the same was not rectified by the said mechanic.  It is alleged that the mechanic directed the complainant to leave the vehicle in his workshop to ascertain the defect and in the intervening night of 7/8.09.2008 a fire caught in the said workshop at about 2:30 a.m. in which the vehicle of the complainant caught a fire and as a result therefore the vehicle completed burnt.  In this regard a DDR NO. 19 dated 08.09.2008 at PS City Dadri was registered by the said Mechanic.  It is alleged that the surveyor was deputed by the official of the respondent who visited the spot.  It is alleged that he had submitted all the relevant papers as desired by the surveyor of the OP.  He made his best efforts to settle/receive the claim amount but OP did not pay the heed on the request of the complainant.  It is alleged that on 30.03.2010, the OP informed the complainant that the official of the OP demanded some documents from the complainant relating to the damaged vehicle in fire incident and the same was not provided to them on the part of complainant & as such claim of the complainant has been closed with a remarks of “No Claim”.  It is alleged that all the documents have been supplied by him as and when demanded by the official of the OP then as to why his claim file has been closed however in turn the official of the OP told that due to inadvertently  your case file has been shown closed & as such the claim file of the complainant is being re-opened and a letter dated 10.02.2012 from the OP that claim file of the complainant can not be re-opened.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, pain and  harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking  compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant intentionally and deliberately did not fulfill the formalities despite giving fully opportunity by the OP and ultimately the OP was constrained to close the claim file as No Claim & and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide registered letter dated 30.03.2010.  It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OP and he is also not entitled to Rs. 3,70,000/- being the insured value of the vehicle alongwith interest due to his own act and conduct.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and 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 documents  Annexure 1 to Annexure 12 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 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 OP despite settlement of the claim of the complainant at Rs. 303100/- but the same has not been paid to the complainant.  He submitted that all the requisite documents were supplied by the complainant to the OP.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the claim of the complainant was settled at Rs. 303100/- and the complainant vide letter dated 10.03.2010 Annexure R-3 was asked to transfer the registration certificate of the vehicle in favour of the company, to submit letter of subrogation, discharge voucher and also to deposit the salvage with the OP but despite said letter the complainant failed to comply with the formalities.  The claim file of the complainant was lodged vide letter dated 30.03.2010 Annexure R-2.  He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred.  The occurrence of fire had taken place on 7/08.09.2008 and the claim file of the complainant was lodged due to non completion of necessary formalities by the complainant and the complainant was duly intimated vide registered letter dated 30.03.2010. 

8.                The main facts of the case are not in dispute.  The claim of the complainant has been settled by the OP at Rs. 303100/- . The OP has taken a plea that the complainant has failed to comply with the necessary formalities which has been mentioned in letter dated 10.03.2010.  On the other side, the complainant has contended that all the requisite documents were submitted by him with the OP.  Considering the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the complainant  to submit the letter of subrogation,  discharge voucher and also to return the salvage to the OP.  The OP is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 303100/- (If the salvage is not returned by the complainant then the OP can deduct the cost of salvage mentioned by the surveyor in his report) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of completion of the said formalities, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the awarded amount till the date of payment.  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: 19.01.2017.                                            (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,   

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

    (Anamika Gupta)                 

                   Member.