DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.61/13.05.2008<br /> Decided on : 11.08.2008<br /> <br /> Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh.Mohan Lal, resident of Mansa, proprietor M/s Rakesh Computerized Laboratory, Water Works Road, Mansa.<br /> <br /> ..... Complainant.<br /> <br /> VERSUS<br /> <br /> 1.The Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2B&C,<br /> Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager(Claim).<br /> <br /> 2.The Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, No.13, Shakti<br /> Complex, The Mall, Bathinda through its Manager/competent authority.<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the <br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> .....<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Sweet Kumar Singla, counsel for the complainant.<br /> Opposite Party exparte.<br /> <br /> Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.<br /> Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER:<br /> <br /> Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited at Chandigarh, as well as Bathinda (hereinafter called as the opposite parties) for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant by making payment of Rs.36,931/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and also for costs of litigation along with interest @ 12% per annum.<br /> Brief allegations of the complainant in this case are that he is carrying on the business of clinical laboratory, which is the only source of<br /> Contd........2<br /> : 2 :<br /> <br /> his income and livelihood. For the purpose of his laboratory, he had purchased an Auto Analyzer Star 21 machine bearing Sr.No.322049 from M/s Rapid Diagnostic Private Ltd., Delhi. The representative of the company approached the office of the complainant and assured him to provide best and immediate service in the case of purchase of the policy for insurance of the laboratory equipments. Relying upon the assurances of the representative of the company, the company had issued cover note No.41030525 for Rs.3007/- on 5.9.2005 and further renewed the policy vide cover note No.41144032 for Rs.3064/- dated 9.9.2006 which was valid upto 8.9.2007. The complainant had paid the premium as per the requirements of the OP company at the spot, as such, the complainant is the consumer of the Ops. In the month of August, 2007, the said machine suffered some defects and left working as per its specifications. On the information of the complainant, the OP company sent a surveyor to survey the machine and assess the loss. The company also called the engineers of M/s Garg Diagnostic House, Budhlada, who stated that the machine has become defective due to electricity fluctuation and advised for the replacement of printer, filter340, filter405, filter518, filter630, aspiration tube and parastalic pump tube and some other parts of the machine and also took the photographs of the said machine and made a detailed report including the Technical Report for submission to the Ops with a copy to the complainant. A quotation in the sum of Rs.47103/- was issued to the Ops which were to be spent by the Ops being the insurer. But the OP company suggested the complainant to get the machine repaired from M/s Garg Diagnostic House itself and assured that the claim of Rs.47103/- would be paid after getting it passed from the higher authorities of the company. As such, the complainant got the machine repaired from Garg Diagnostic House, Budhlada vide bill No.577 and No.578 dated 30.10.2007. The complainant has accordingly submitted the claim amount of Rs.47103/-, which amount was orally accepted by the officials of the OP<br /> Contd........3<br /> : 3 :<br /> <br /> company as it was according to the terms and conditions of policy at Sr.No.9, Section 007 for Rs.94,000/- on account of Breakdown elec. Mech. equipment. The opposite party, however, despite submission of the requisite documents by the complainant sanctioned an amount of Rs.10,172/- only which was paid to him vide cheque No.201436 dated 11.12.2007. The complainant alleges to have suffered mental, as well as physical harassment at the hands of the OP company without any fault on his part. Hence this complaint.<br /> Ops No.1 and 2 did not appear despite service and, as such, were proceeded against exparte on 02.07.2008. <br /> The counsel for the complainant has led his exparte evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. <br /> We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by him.<br /> The complainant has placed reliance upon the cover note ext.C-2,C-3 and C-5 issued by the OP company. No doubt in exhibit C-5, the Schedule under the coverage details u/s 007 Breakdown Elec. Mech. Equipment an amount of Rs.94,000/- is mentioned as sum insured. The Technical report and the detailed report, exhibit C-6 and C-7, submitted by Garg Diagnostic House, Budhlada also reveals that the fault occurred on account of voltage fluctuation and required replacement, which certainly falls under the description of Breakdown Elec.Mech.equipment. The complainant has also placed on record bill No.0577 dated 30.10.2007 (ext.C-8) in the sum of Rs.42103/- and Bill No.0578 dated 30.10.2007 in the sum of Rs.5000/- spent by him for getting his machine repaired. The complainant has also placed reliance upon a photocopy of a demand draft (Ext.C-10) in the sum of Rs.10,712/- dated 11.12.2007 payable by the Ops on account of claim amount. The opposite party company is thus deficient by decreasing the claim amount and paying only Rs.10,712/-. The opposite<br /> Contd........4<br /> : 4 :<br /> <br /> parties have failed to put in appearance despite service to rebutt the stand of the complainant and the failure of Ops No.1 and 2 to contest this claim also makes their bonafides doubtful. As such, we have no other option but to allow the complaint on the basis of the records produced by the complainant in support of his allegations.<br /> Thus, the failure of the opposite parties to sanction the total claim amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant and the complainant deserves some compensation in this regard. <br /> Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to disburse the amount of Rs.36,931/- i.e the remaining amount of claim to the complainant The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation on account of mental, as well as physical harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs. Compliance of the order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced:<br /> 11.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, <br /> Member. Member.