Haryana

StateCommission

A/1243/2016

JAI PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER BANGAR

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1243 of 2016

Date of Institution:  20.12.2016

Date of Decision:    16.02.2017

 

Jai Parkash son of Shri Mansa Ram, resident of Village & P.O. Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited c/o Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.145-146, Top Floor, above VLCC, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, in front of Pooja Moderen School, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Ravinder Bangar, counsel for the appellant.              

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 19^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, complaint was allowed directing Reliance General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) to pay Rs.4000/- as demanded by the complainant in his complaint on account of damage of his car in a road accident on November 09^th, 2011.
2.      Jai Parkash-complainant was registered owner of Car bearing registration No.HR-41B/6888. The car was got insured with the Insurance Company. It met with an accident on November 09^th, 2011 and burnt. The insurance Company has already paid Rs.1,16,000/- to the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company in their written version denied the averments of the complaint and stated that there was no deficiency in services on their behalf.

4.      The District Forum allowed the complaint for the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/-.

5.      Notwithstanding, the complainant has filed this appeal seeking payment of Rs.10,000/- which he paid to the owner of the garage as parking charges.

6.      The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is not convincing because in the complaint it was only prayed that the Insurance Company be directed to pay Rs.4000/-. However, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in Para No.6 of the complaint Rs.10,000/- was asked to be paid by complainant, which he paid to Onkar Motors. There is no evidence on record that any amount was paid by the complainant to the owner of Onkar Motors.

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is dismissed.       

 

  

Announced 16.02.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

D.R.