Haryana

Kurukshetra

76/2017

Rama Kala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Kapoor

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.76 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 03.04.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:26.03.2018.

Ramkala son of Sh. Kehro Ram, resident of Village Kakrala Gujran, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, vide policy No.2010552334000654, valid from 24.07.2015 to 23.07.2016 through its Manager having its office at Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
2. Er. Rajesh Chhabra, Surveyor and loss Assessor Consultant Engineering and valuer of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at House No.1667, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra-136118.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Mohit Goel, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Op No.2 exparte. 

               

ORDER

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

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got insured his vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing registration No.HR64/5738 with the Op vide policy No.2010552334000654 for the period valid w.e.f. 24.07.2015 to 23.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.  It is alleged that on 30.12.2015, the son of complainant saw that the said vehicle was burning and smoke was coming from the bonnet of said vehicle.  This incident had taken place due to sparking of the wires in the bonnet of said vehicle.  The complainant informed the police about this incident and got lodged DDR No.13 dt. 31.12.2015 in Police Post Karha Sahab (Pehowa), Distt. Kurukshetra.  Information regarding said incident was given to Op No.1.  The complainant got repaired the said vehicle and spent Rs.47,602/- on its repair.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.1 and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op No.1 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 Rs.47,602/- as repair charges alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 15.05.2017.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing 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 on receipt of intimation regarding incident, the surveyor was appointed by the Op No.1 and it was revealed by the surveyor that the vehicle of complainant was parked outside of his house in ignition mode on 30.12.2015 and when his son went out to attend the nature of calls, then he found that the vehicle caught fire at engine compartment and the horn of the vehicle was continuously blowing.  The complainant has deposed this in writing to the investigator and he has also declared that his vehicle has gone through an expra fitment of said horn mechanism from local market.  The approximate cause of the fire is due to short circuiting in electric system at the wiring hardness, which was tampered while fitment of extra horn mechanism in the car from the local market.  The damages caused due to lack of maintenance or consequential losses are out of scope of the policy coverage and are not payable under the policy terms and conditions.  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.             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.             No doubt, the complainant has proved on record the photo-stat copies of receipt as Ex.C9 to Ex.C12.  However, it is not clear who is the author of these receipts.  In these circumstances, these receipts cannot said to be acceptable in toto.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 has proved on record the survey report as Ex.R1, which is with regard to the amount of Rs.5241/-. 

7.             In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice, the complainant be allowed the compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  So, the complainant of complainant is partly allowed for the compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  However, the Op No.1 is directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- within the period of two months, failing which, the Op No.1 shall be liable to pay the interest on the above-said amount @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till its realization and in that case, the penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

   

Announced in open court:

Dt.:26.03.2018.

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member