Haryana

Sonipat

CC/28/2015

JAI KISHAN HOODA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN KUMAR

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.28 of 2015

                                    Instituted on:30.01.2015

                                    Date of order:02.09.2015

 

Jai Krishan Hooda H.NO.902/31, Gali no.3, Shastri Colony, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Plot no.2, Tower F, Ist Floor, DLF Building, IT Park, Chandigarh.

                                  …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his motor cycle no.HR10K/7668 was insured with the respondent and unfortunately, it was stolen on 27.9.2010 and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  All the formalities of the respondent were completed and all the necessary documents including untraced report were submitted to the respondent, but till date the claim has not been settled by the respondent and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has not fulfilled the necessary requirements for processing of the claim and the complainant has not submitted the required documents despite repeated reminders dated 6.12.2010, 13.1.2011 and 10.2.2011 and thus, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2011 and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has not fulfilled the necessary requirements for processing of the claim and the complainant has not submitted the required documents despite repeated reminders dated 6.12.2010, 13.1.2011 and 10.2.2011 and thus, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.3.2011 and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         Vide letter dated 6.12.2010, 13.1.2011 and 10.2.2011 the respondent has demanded Vehicle Purchase invoice, service record of vehicle and police final report or court summary u/s 173 Cr.P.C.  In our view, the demand of vehicle purchase invoice  and service record of vehicle from the complainant is not justified as there is no nexus between the cause of theft.  The theft of the motor cycle has occurred during the validity of insurance policy and the untraced report has already been submitted by the complainant with the respondent.  But despite this, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated and that, in our view, amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Rs.three thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 02.09.2015