Haryana

Karnal

140/2012

Kuldeep Singh S/o Chatar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ankush Sharma

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.140 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt:6.3.2012

                                                          Date of decision:24.08.2015

 

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Chatar Singh resident of house no.842, Gali No.2, Prem Colony, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                   Vs.

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.Issue office 102018 SCO No.410, First Floor, Mugal Canal,Karnal through its Manager.

l                                                    …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Ankush Sharma Advocate  for the complainant.

                    Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of then Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration No. GR-45/5751 from the OP vide insurance policy No.102018/31/12/000433 and the said policy  was valid from 26.4.2012 to 25.4.2012. The s aid vehicle on the complainant met with an accident on 12.8.2011 at U.P. and intimation to the OP was duly given. The complainant got the said vehicle repaired from Metro Motors, GT Road, Karnal and the bill of Rs.5,78,726/- was issued regarding the repairs. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP regarding the expenses incurred by him on the repair of the said vehicle but the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the OP which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in services and has prayed that the OP be directed to make the payment of the claim alongwith the  compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the content so the complaint.

 

2.       On notice the OP appeared and filed its  written statement raising the preliminary objections that  the complaint was not maintainable; that the complaint was bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and  to decide the present complaint.

 

          On merits, it was contended  that after repeated requests, the complainant failed to supply the copy of load challans, third party vehicle registration number and details and certified copy of the FIR , cash receipt of the repair bills and as such the complainant was not entitled to any claim. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.