Haryana

Jind

106

Indu Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jabir Malik

01 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 106 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 17.5.2013

   Date of final order: 5.1.2015

 

Smt. Indu Bala w/o Sunil Kumar r/o house No.360 Raj Colony Panipat, District Panipat through her Special Power of Attorney namely Jaivir s/o Rattan Singh r/o house No.88, Laxmi Nagar near Gopal School, Rohtak road, Jind.     

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.     Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Anil Dhirubhai Ambani

        Group, 570 Rectifier House, Naigaum Cross road, Wadala (West)

Mumbai-400031, India through its Managing Director/responsible officer/person.

2.     The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Anil

        Dhirubhai Ambani Group, City Centre, Ist floor, opp. IB college

        Panipat, G.T. road Panipat (Haryana), through its Branch

        Manager, Jind.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

               

Present:     Sh. Jaibir Malik, Adv. for  complainant.

                Sh. J.B. Goyal, Adv. for  Opposite Parties.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Truck bearing registration No. HR-67A-1808 and the same was got insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.2005712334002205 for the period from 8.1.2012 to 7.1.2013 and

                        Indu Bala Vs. RGIC etc.

                                   …2…

paid a sum of Rs.25,102/- as premium.  Sh. Jaivir s/o Rattan Singh has been appointed as Special Power of attorney by the complainant for keeping and looking after the said vehicle.  The above said vehicle met with road side accident in the area of Police Station Meham on 20.6.2012 and DDR No.10 dated 20.6.2012 was lodged to this effect. The truck of the complainant was damaged badly. Information to this effect was given to the opposite parties.  Necessary survey was conducted by the officials of opposite parties. The complainant has got repaired his vehicle and spent a sum of Rs.5,89,000/-. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,49,847/- on account of damages of the above said vehicle and after making illegal deduction therein only a sum of Rs.1,36,589/- has been paid in the account of loan. In this way the opposite parties illegally and unlawfully withheld a sum of Rs.4,52,411/- and has not been paid to the complainant. The complainant  visited the office of opposite parties and requested to give the remaining amount of Rs. 4,52,411/- but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,52,411/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have  put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections  that the

                        Indu Bala Vs. RGIC etc.

                                   …3…

complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous.  On merits, it is contended that  the survey of the vehicle was got conducted by the opposite parties. The surveyor has assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,39,831.87P and value of salvage has been assessed to the tune of Rs.3,331,87P. Thereafter, the opposite parties disbursed the amount of compensation of Rs.1,36,500/- and deposited the same in the loan account of complainant with his entire consent and in full and final settlement of his claim.  The complainant has received the compensation amount without any protest.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory costs of Rs.25,000/- is prayed for.

3.     In evidence the complainant has produced the  affidavit  of Jaivir Ex. C-1,  copy of delivery cum receipt Ex. C-2, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-3, copy of rapat Ex. C-4, copy of authorization certificate Ex. C-5, copy of power of attorney Ex. C-6, copies of cash memos Ex. C-7 to C-10 and C-13 to C-19, copy of vat invoice Ex. C-11 and  copy of ration card Ex. C-20 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the affidavit of Sh.

Abhilash Chander Ex. OP-1,  copy of survey report Ex. OP-2, copy of claim cost approval sheet Ex. OP-3, copy of affidavit of Indu Bala Ex.

 

                        Indu Bala Vs. RGIC etc.

                                   …4…

OP-4, copy of claim form Ex. OP-5 and copy of RC Ex. OP-6  and closed the evidence.

4.     Arguments of both the parties were heard in detail and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant has insured her truck bearing registration No. HR67A1808 with the opposite parties vide insurance cover note from the period from 8.1.2012 to 7.1.2013 and has paid premium of Rs.25,103/-. Sh. Jaivir s/o Rattan Singh has been appointed as Special Power of Attorney by the complainant for keeping and looking after the said vehicle Ex. C-6. On dated 20.6.2012 the above said vehicle met with road side accident and DDR No.10 dated 20.6.2012 was lodged in Police Station Meham Ex. C-4. The vehicle of the complainant was damaged badly and information to this effect was given to the opposite parties and necessary survey was conducted by the opposite parties. The complainant has got repaired the said vehicle from various workshops and spent a sum of Rs.5,89,000/-. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties but the opposite parties paid only Rs.1,36,589/- in the account of loan of the said vehicle of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties and requested to give the remaining amount of Rs.4,52,411/- but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.

5.     On the other hand, the opposite parties have averred that the surveyor Sh. Gurjeet Singh Pahwa, deputed by the opposite parties have assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,39,837.87P and submitted his report dated 5.1.2013 to the opposite parties accordingly Ex. OP-2.

                        Indu Bala Vs. RGIC etc.

                                   …5…

Thereafter, the opposite parties disbursed the amount of compensation of Rs.1,36,500/- and deposited the same in the loan account with her entire consent, which she had received without any protest. The complainant also gave her consent for full and final settlement Ex. OP-3.

6.     In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has accepted the above said amount i.e. Rs.1,36,500/- from the opposite parties as full and final payment without any protest. Therefore, no deficiency in service is established on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 5.1.2015

 

                                                          President,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind