BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 787 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 24.12.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 30.03.2011 |
Arvinder Singh s/o Sh.Karam Singh r/o VPO Abaypur, Tehsil and District Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S The Manager, HDFC IRGO General Insurance Company, SCO No.124-125, First Floor, Sector 8, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Gurtej Singh Prince, Adv. for complainant. OP exparte. PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER Succinctly put, the Truck (Tipper) bearing registration No.PB-65-L-5081 was insured with the OP for the period 25.06.2010 to 24.06.2011 against the premium of Rs.26,496/-. Unfortunately, the truck met with an accident on 17.10.2010 and its cabin was totally damaged. The matter was reported to the OP who deputed its Surveyor and Loss Assessor. It has been alleged by the complainant that initially the surveyor agreed for installation of new cabin of the truck but later on he refused to do so despite the fact that M/s PASCO declared that the same was irreparable. Due to this reason, the truck is still lying in the workshop for effecting the necessary repairs and he is suffering financial loss on account of non-plying of the truck. The complainant served legal notice dated 03.12.2010 upon OP but to no effect. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. OP duly served but it did not appear hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2011. 3. The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 5. The complainant has not been able to show any record or evidence from where he could prove that OP was deficient in service. Not even this, he was not able to show who was the surveyor and what was his report. All the assertions made by him are totally oral. He has not been able to place on record any evidence/correspondence with OP. Since OP was proceeded against exparte but the complainant has to stand on his own legs. So there is no evidence on the record for which OP can be held deficient. In these circumstances, the complainant has not been able to prove his case. 6. In view of the foregoing findings, there is no merit in the case and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- sd/- March 30, 2011 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | cm | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
