BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:16 of 2013.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 22.02.2013.

                                                                      Date of Decision:14.10.2015

Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Dharam Pal, resident of village Fatrehgarh, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                      ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 135-136, IInd Floor Sector 9, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                                                                          …...Opposite Parties. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                   Shri Balraj Singh, Member

         Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- Shri Sandeep Lakra, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a Tipper (truck) vehicle bearing registration No.HR61/4995, chasis No. 396522ETZ 211099, engine No. 60E62478876 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy bearing No. 20A07625/20A07625 which was valid from 17.08.2011 to 16.08.2012. The complainant alleged that on 04.12.2011 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No.222 dated 04.12.2011 was registered in P.S. City Charkhi Dadri.  The complainant alleged that the police was not trace out the said truck and in the end un-trace report was filed by the police in the court.  The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Opposite Party for making payment of insured amount but to no avail. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that there is no branch or office of the answering respondent Bhiwani & Dadri even the complainant has arrayed the respondent concerned to the answering Insurance Co. whose address is out of the jurisdiction.  It is submitted that as the matter was well investigated and surveyed by independent person licensed by IRDA at the earliest after receipt of information from the complainant.  It is further submitted that as the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of policy DL was not supplied and changing stand on driver from time to time and failed to prove his record and DL etc.  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 Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Insurance, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of order dated 28.05.2012, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of order dated 21.05.2012 & 23.05.2012, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of order dated 24.04.2012, Annexure C-5 Photostat copy of registration, Annexure C-6 Photostat copy of letter dated 19.12.2011 &  Annexure C-7 Photostat copy of FIR along with affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1.

5.                 Both the parties have filed written arguments.

6.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7.                 Learned counsel for the OP stated that the claim of the complainant has been settled and the opposite party have paid the claim of Rs. 8,98,500/- to the complainant vide cheque dated 16.05.2013  and no amount is payable to the complainant. 

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there is delay in the payment of the claim by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party are liable to pay the interest for the delayed payment of claim.

9.                 In view of the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we examined the material on record.  The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the claim amount of Rs. 8,98,500/- has been received by the complainant without raising any protest and now the complainant is estopped to claim the interest.  Keeping in view the facts of the case as the claim has been received by the complainant without protest as full and final settlement of his claim.  As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors. reported in 1999 (2) CPC 601 (Supreme Court),  the complainant cannot claim for the payment of interest.  Hence, the complaint accordingly stands disposed of being fully satisfied. 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: 14.10.2015.                            

      (Rajesh Jindal)                             

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)            (Balraj Singh)       

     Member                           Member