BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:150 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 04.04.2013.
Date of Decision:22.03.2017
Sandeep son of Shri Krishan Kumar, resident of House No. 17, M.C. Colony, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., D Park Modal Towan, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate, for complainant.
OP exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had got insured the car from 22.03.2011 to 31.03.2012 vide policy cover note No. 110001388738 dated 21.03.2011. It is alleged that on 01.06.2011 the abovesaid vehicle was damaged in road side accident. It is alleged that the complainant went to the OP several times for claim but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. 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. OP has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.01.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61/9804 was insured with OP vide cover note No. 110001388738 dated 21.03.2011 was valid for the period from 22.03.2011 to 31.03.2012. The said vehicle of the complainant met with accident on 01.06.2011. The complainant immediately intimated the OP regarding the accident and the company deputed surveyor to inspect the vehicle. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the repairs. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from Vishavkarma Denting Painting and Body Builder, Hisar.
6. We have perused the record carefully. The complainant in his complaint has alleged that a surveyor was deputed by the OP, who made survey of the vehicle but he has not produced any surveyor report. The complainant has not given specifically when the surveyor made survey of the vehicle or when he deposited necessary documents with the OP. Not even a single letter/correspondence of the OP has been produced by the complainant on the record. The complainant has failed to prove that he had given the intimation of the accident to the OP, surveyor was deputed and he submitted the documents to the OP, as alleged, by cogent evidence. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 04.04.2013 and after about 4 years he has produced the photo copies of documents on 21.03.2017 without any justification for the delay. From the material available on the record it seems that the complainant has not duly lodged the claim with OP, otherwise there would have been a correspondence by the OP with the complainant. The complainant has directly approached this District Forum. Under the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint by the consumer is maintainable against the service provider if there is deficiency in service on the part of the service provider/OP. In this case no cogent and corroborative evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In these circumstances, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 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: 22.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
