Haryana

Sonipat

CC/173/2015

Anand Singh S/o Karna Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh Antil

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.173 of 2015

Instituted on: 25.05.2015                 

Date of order: 11.03.2016

 

Anand Singh son of Karan Singh, r/o H.No.243, HBC, Sector 23, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. 3^rd, Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

 

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Kuldeep Singh Antil, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.HC Jain, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he is the registered owner of the motor cycle no.HR10G/6775 which was insured with the respondent and unfortunately it was stolen on 8.9.2007.  The respondent were duly informed by the complainant.  The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondent and submitted all the required documents.  But till date, the respondent has not paid the claim  amount of Rs29,950/- to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent has appeared and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the respondent has already approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.29,950/- subject to the compliance of requisite formalities i.e. the complainant was to submit the original RC, letter of subrogation, discharged voucher duly signed by the complainant.  The present complaint is time barred because the alleged theft has been stated to have taken place on 8.9.2007 but the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015 i.e. after about 8 years. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the complainant has completed all the required formalities and has submitted all the required documents to the respondent, but despite this, the respondent has not paid the claim amount of Rs.29,950/- to the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because the respondent has already approved the claim of the complainant for Rs.29,950/- subject to the compliance of requisite formalities i.e. the complainant was to submit the original RC, letter of subrogation, discharged voucher duly signed by the complainant.  The present complaint is time barred because the alleged theft has been stated to have taken place on 8.9.2007 but the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015 i.e. after about 8 years. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         We have perused the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 which itself shows that the respondent has approved the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.29950/- and the said amount could not be paid to the complainant due to non submission of some documents by the complainant in the insurance company.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to both the parties.  Thus, we hereby direct the complainant to submit the form 29 & 30 and form 35A, letter of subrogation letter, discharged voucher as demanded by the respondent insurance company within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order. Similarly, the respondent is hereby directed to make the payment of Rs.29950/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days which shall be counted from the day when the complainant deposits the above said documents with the respondent. However, it is made clear here that if the respondent fails to make the payment of the said amount within the stipulated period, in that event, the said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

Prabha Wati Member    DV Rathi Member     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP             DCDRF SNP         President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 11.03.2016