Haryana

Kurukshetra

246/2017

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh kumar

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.246 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 20.11.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:01.02.2019.

Ram Kumar son of Shri Amir Chand, resident of House No.379, VPO Vara, Tehsil Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra-Haryana.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 through its Divisional Manager.
2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Ist Floor, SCO-13P, Sector-17, near LIC Building, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Suresh Kumar Kasyap, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Harpal Mandhan, Adv. for the Op No.2.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ram Kumar against Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Balero Maxi bearing registration No.HR65-8893 with the Ops vide policy No.10003/31/17/217206 for the period valid w.e.f. 14.08.2016 to 13.08.2017.  It is alleged that on 11.07.2017, the said vehicle met with an accident while going from Adhoya to Tola Road and in the said accident, the said vehicle was got damaged.  It is further alleged that DDR No.015 dt. 02.08.2017 was got registered in P.S. Barara, Distt. Ambala.  The complainant spent Rs.60,000/- on its repair.  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 pay Rs.60,000/- as repair charges alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the 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 after receiving intimation of loss from the complainant, IRDA approved independent surveyor namely Sh. Satish Sohal was appointed by the answering Op, who after making proper inspection and assessment, submitted his report and according to which, the total amount payable regarding this accident/loss is Rs.10,577/-; that 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.             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppels; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and as such, he is not entitled to any relief from this Forum. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence document Ex.R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has purchased a policy bearing No.10003/31/17/217206 for the period valid w.e.f. 14.08.2016 to 13.08.2017 from the Ops of his Mahindra & Mahindra Balero Maxi at Kurukshetra, which is the branch office of Op No.1.  He further contended that on 11.07.2017 at about 06.30 p.m. the aforesaid jeep met with an accident and the said jeep was damaged in the said accident.  The complainant lodged DDR No.15 dt. 02.08.2017, which is Ex.C8.  Information regarding the said accident was given to Ops.  The complainant submitted the documents with the Ops as demanded by them.  The complaint spent Rs.60,000/- on the repair of damaged vehicle, the receipts of repair bills are Ex.C9 to Ex.C13.  He further contended that the Ops have not settled the claim of complainant.  The counsel of complainant placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2011(3) CPJ page 468 titled as B. Shantilal and Co. Vs. NIA (NC) and 2018(1) RCR (Civil) titled as Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another (SC).

9.             On the other hand, both the learned counsel for the Ops contended that there is delay in lodging DDR because the accident ook place on 11.07.2017 and DDR was recorded on 02.08.2017, so, there is delay of many days in this case.  The second point raised by the counsel of Ops is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the accident has taken place in the area of Barara, Distt. Ambala.  The counsel of Op No.1 contended that in the surveyor report, which is Ex.R1, the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.25,986.20 paise.  There is no office in Distt. Kurukshetra of Op No.1, so, the complaint of the complainant may please be dismissed.  The counsel of Op No.1 placed reliance upon the case law titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and others bearing Civil Appeal No.2339 of 1992, date of decision: 27.07.1999 Law Finder Doc Id # 189680 (SC); Khimbibhai and sons Vs. NIA bearing revision petition No.780 of 2007, date of decision: 26.08.2011, Law Finder Doc Id # 585474 (NC); Ankur Surana Vs. UII bearing Revision Petition No.2031 of 2012, date of decision: 16.01.2013, Law Finder Doc Id # 538791 (NC) and Sonic Surgical Vs. NIC bearing Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, date of decision: 20.10.2009, Law Finder Doc Id # 204530 (SC).

10.            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 vehicle with the Op No.1 and during the subsistence of the policy, the said vehicle met with an accident.  The complainant got repaired the said vehicle and incurred Rs.60,000/- on its repair.  The grievance of the complainant is that he lodged the claim with the Op No.1 but till today the Op No.1 has not decided the claim.  On 30.01.2019, the counsel of Op No.2 made statement before this Forum to the effect that there is no balance against the complainant.  In view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that till now the Op No.1 has not decided the claim of Op No.1, so, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1.  The complainant has placed on file the repair bills Ex.C9 to Ex.C13 total amounting to Rs.55,061/-, so, the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.55,061/- instead of Rs.60,000/-.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against the Op No.1 and direct the Op No.1 to pay Rs.55,061/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  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 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.:01.02.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.