Haryana

Karnal

204/2014

Rakesh Jatiana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Regh. & Head Office - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Sachdeva

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 204 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.  22.07.2014

                                                               Date of decision:4.11.2016

 

Rakesh Jatiana resident of house no.2092 sector-13 Urban Estate Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Chief Manager, Registered & Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 (United India Insurance).

2. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Durga Mandir Trust , G.T. Road, near Bus Stand, Karnal-132001 (Haryana)

                                                                                 ……Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Deepak Sachdeva Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  Y.P.Arora Advocate for opposite parties.

                                               

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that Vinay Jatiana (since deceased) was owner of motorcycle bearing no.HR05AG-0683 and the same was insured with opposite parties, vide policy no.1123003112P 300431872, valid from 5.9.2012 to 4.9.2013. Vinay Jatiana died in road side accident on 6.7.2013. He was covered under the said policy for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties had paid only claim amount of driver-cum-owner to the complainant, but no claim regarding damage to the motorcycle had been paid. Claim was lodged with the opposite parties bearing reference no.MDC/KRL/2013 and all formalities were completed, but the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, legal notice dated 17.4.2014 was got served, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi; that the complaint is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite parties deputed independent surveyor to assess the loss and the loss was assessed as Rs.68,000/-and opposite parties sent a cheque no.96784 dated 13.05.2014 for Rs.68,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 3 Karnal, which was delivered to the complainant on 19.5.2014, but the complainant did not present the said cheque. Opposite parties sent a letter requesting him to get enchashed the said cheque, but the complainant did not present the same. The validity of the said cheque expired after three months. Opposite parties are ready to issue a fresh cheque of Rs.68,000/- to the complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C8 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Virender Kumar Khar, Divisional Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.O3 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                It is not in dispute that the motorcycle bearing no.HR05AG-0683 of Vinay Jatiana was insured with the opposite parties and the same met with an accident on 6.7.2013 during subsistence of the policy and in the said accident Vinay Jatiana had died and the motorcycle was damaged. Admittedly, the claim regarding death of driver-cum-owner was paid to the complainant. The dispute is regarding payment of the claim for damage to the motorcycle. The opposite parties have produced the copy of the forwarding letter Ex.O2 dated 14.5.2014 alongwith copy of Delivery Run Sheet Ex.O3, according to which cheque no.096784 dated 14.5.2014 for Rs.68,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Karnal was delivered to the complainant, but the complainant has denied the factum of receiving any such cheque. Had such cheque been received by the complainant, then there could be no question of not getting the same encashed, because the complainant had submitted claim to the opposite parties with regard to the damage of the motorcycle and he must be willing to accept the loss assessed by the surveyor. The opposite parties have submitted that a letter was sent to the complainant requesting him to present the cheque, but such plea cannot be accepted, because no such letter has been placed on record. From these facts and circumstances, it is clear that the surveyor had assessed the loss with regard to damage of the motorcycle of Vinay Kumar the son of the complainant as Rs.68,000/-and the cheque regarding payment of the said amount allegedly issued by the opposite parties was not received by the complainant. Even the complainant had sent registered legal notice to the opposite parties before filing the present complaint, as is evident from the copy of the notice Ex.C2, but despite that the claim regarding damage to the motorcycle was not paid by the opposite parties, which certainly amounted to deficiency in service.

7.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.68,000/- as loss assessed by the surveyor to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 04.11.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member`