Haryana

Kurukshetra

69/2017

Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder bhardwaj

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.69 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.03.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:30.10.2018.

Ram Lal son of Kurdiya Ram, resident of VPO Arnaicha, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.47-48, 2^nd floor, Sector-9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office, Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, through its Managing Director.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. at Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Ravinder Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Virender Garg, Advocate for the OPs.No.1 & 2.

                Op No.3 given-up (Vide order dt. 05.02.2018).

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ram Lal against Reliance General Insurance Company and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his car bearing No.HR08L-2620 marka Fiat/Linea Active with the Ops vide policy No.2010542311002682 for the period valid w.e.f. 16.03.2014 to 15.03.2015.  It is alleged that on 12.03.2015 the said car met with an accident on Pehowa-Dhand Road, Kurukshetra and suddenly fell in the ditches and heavy damage was caused to the said car.  It is further alleged that the information regarding accident was given to the Ops and a surveyor of the Ops came at the spot, who assessed the damages.  The complainant got repaired the said car from Bharat Motors near Garg Nursing Home, Ambala Road, Pehowa and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was spent by the complainant on the said repair.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  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 an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as repair charges and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.3 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 05.02.2018.  Ops No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their 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 answering Ops requested the complainant to furnish the documents i.e. registration certificate, driving license, copy of FIR, KYC documents, claim form duly filled-up etc. and several registered letters dt. 20.04.2015, 29.05.2015, 30.09.2015 were written to the complainant but till date the complainant has failed to furnish/provide the required documents.  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.             In support of his case, the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of Reliance Motor Private Car Endorsement Schedule as Ex.C1, copy of policy as Ex.C2, copy of letter dt. 03.09.2015 as Ex.C3, copy of intimation regarding accident as Ex.C4, copy of bills as Ex.C5 to Ex.C10 and copy of license as Ex.C11 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.             On the other hand, the counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A, copy of letters as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and copy of survey report as Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2.

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

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that it is a pre-mature case.  So, without going into any other controversy, we direct the complainant to submit the documents as demanded by the Ops vide letters, Ex.R1, Ex.R3 & Ex.R4 within one month from the date of communication of this order and also direct the Ops to settle the claim within one month after submission of documents by the complainant with the OPs. 

7.             With these directions, the present complaint is disposed off.  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.:30.10.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.