Haryana

Kurukshetra

81/2017

Nitin Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.81 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.04.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 16.03.2018.

Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander, resident of House No.734/7, Patel Nagar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Rahul Ram Private Limited, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.
2. Singla Honda, Pipli Road, near Vishal Mega Mart, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory. 
3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.350-352, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager/MD/GM.
4. Bharti Axa General Insurance Ltd., Ist Floor, Fems Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanakundi, Banglaore-560037, India, IRDA Regn. No.139.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. M.K.Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                Op No.1 given up.   

                Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                Sh. Jai Ram Saini, Adv. for the Ops No.3 & 4.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Nitin Kumar against Rahul Ram and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got insured his Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.HR07S/5536 with the Ops No.3 & 4 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- for the period valid w.e.f. 21.08.2014 to 20.08.2015.  It is alleged that the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.12.2014.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops No.3 & 4 and submitted all the necessary documents.  It is further alleged that the surveyor was appointed by the Ops No.3 & 4, who surveyed the vehicle and found total damage.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops No.3 & 4 several time to release the claim but the Ops No.3 & 4 did not do so.  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 release the insured amount of Rs.34,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.2 to 4 appeared before this Forum, whereas the Op No.1 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 25.10.2017.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing separate reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the vehicle in question was lying with the answering Op just after the accident and after that nobody came to answering Op regarding the maintenance of the said vehicle.  The said vehicle was lying with the answering Op from 23.12.2014 to 23.03.2017.  So, as per the rules and regulations of the agency/company, the answering Op is liable to get tariff at the rate of Rs.30/- per day for the period, the said vehicle was remained with the answering Op.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ops No.3 & 4 contested the complaint by filing joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant has not fulfilled the policy conditions and therefore, the breach of trust has been committed on the part of complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that two reminder letters dt.20.01.2015 and 03.03.2015 were sent to insured vide which some documents were demanded but the complainant did not sent the required documents.  However, it is also mentioned here that the answering Op has deputed independent surveyor & loss assessor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28,456/- after depreciation and deduction of cost of salvage etc.   Therefore, the answering Op has only the liability amounting to Rs.28,456/- as per the assessment and according to the terms and conditions of policy of insurance.  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.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove

their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the surveyor namely M/s. IAR surveyor and loss assessors was appointed by the Ops No.3 & 4, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28,456/- vide his report, Ex.R1 but the Ops No.3 & 4 did not release the said amount to the complainant.  In such like circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.28,456/- as assessed by the surveyor.

       In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs No.3 & 4 to pay Rs.28,456/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties No.3 & 4.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.03.2018.

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member