BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:365 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 08.07.2013.
Date of Decision:10.04.2017
Ram Chander aged 55 years son of Shri Pyare Lal, resident of village Roopgarh, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Yamunanagar, through Branch Manager.
...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Advocate
Present:- Shri Surender, Proxy Counsel of
Shri V.P. Yadav, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had got insured the Tractor Escort bearing No. HR-16H/5495. It is alleged that on 06.10.2011, the vehicle was found missing and thereafter FIR No. 451 dated 06.10.2011 under Section 379 IPC was lodged against unknown persons. It is alleged that he lodged the claim with the OP company and submitted the required documents. It is alleged that he visited the OP office for settlement of his claim but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the tractor bearing registration No. HR-16H-5495 was insured with the OP for a period of one year i.e. 27.10.2010 to 26.10.2011. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW/1 and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 and Annexure CW3/A.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant submitted the necessary documents to the OP on 19.07.2012 but the Ops issued letter dated 12.07.2012 closing the claim file of the complainant for want of necessary documents. The Ops are liable to settle the claim of the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that despite repeated letters Annexure R-2, R-4, R-5 and Annexure R-6, the complainant failed to furnish the required documents. Hence, the claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” and intimation of the same was sent to the complainant vide registration letter dated 12.07.2012.
8. We have perused the record carefully. Considering the facts of the case, we direct the Ops to decide the claim of the complainant within 90 days from the date of passing of this order and complainant is also directed to furnish the required documents to the complainant immediately for the settlement of his claim. With this observation, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10.04.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh) (Parmod Kumar)
Member. Member
