BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Vinod Kumar son of Sh.Faquir Chand, resident of H.No.411, Sector 17, Panchkula. 

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Saurabh Joshi, Counsel for complainant.

                        Sh.Pavinder Singh Bedi, Counsel for the OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Tavera B-3 vehicle bearing No.CH-03-4374 and the same was insured with the OP vide policy No.31/09/003937 dated 28.12.2009. It is the case of the complainant that while returning back from Yamuna Nagar to Panchkula at about 9.00 PM, he asked the driver to stop and park the said vehicle off the road. The complainant along with the driver went inside the dhaba and in the meantime a Pick UP Van came and it struck the vehicle in question from the back side. As the said vehicle was parked in neutral gear, so due to impact of hitting, it also struck against the back portion of the truck, with the result, the dicky on the rear side and the bonnet of the vehicle was badly damaged along with radiator and glasses/window screen on the back side & front side of the vehicle. The Pick UP van did not stop and due to darkness, the complainant could not note down the number of Pick UP van. The DDR No.25 dated 4.4.2010 was lodged and the agent of the OP namely Puneet Kohli was duly informed. The damaged vehicle was got repaired from M/s Radiant Autos, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. The total repair bill of Rs.85,986/- was raised, which was paid by the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that the legible copy of DDR dated 4.4.2010 of Police Post Ramgarh was also supplied to the OP but the OP had failed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.           OP filed the reply, wherein, it been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP. It is replied that the complainant himself has alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was parked in neutral gear, which itself shows the gross negligence on his part. More so, the complainant has not parked the vehicle by applying the hand break. It is further replied that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.59388.44 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been further replied that the investigator appointed by the OP wrote number of letters to the complainant to provide clarification on certain points but he failed to do so. Ultimately, the OP forced to close the claim as ‘No Claim’ for want of documents. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3.           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.           Admittedly, the claim has not been finally repudiated till date and it has been closed for want of documents as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 17.12.2010 – Annexure C-7. The OP – Insurance Company has clearly stated in the letter dated 17.12.2010 - Annexure C-7 that a request was made vide letters dated 18.5.2010, 8.7.2010 and 20.8.2010 to the complainant to send the clarification/documents but he failed to send the same inspite of numerous telephonic messages. Sh.K.N.S.Sodhi was appointed as Investigator, who also made a request to the complainant to produce certain documents but he refused to submit the same. The complainant was also requested vide letter dated 8.10.2010 to supply the necessary information within 7 days but he again failed to supply the same.

6.           Now, it is proved on record that the OP could not settle the claim as the complainant did not supply the documents. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be well served, if direction is given to the complainant to supply the relevant record, which is required for assessment of the loss.

7.           In view of this, we do not feel the necessity to go into the further details of the matter. The OP is directed to address a communication to the complainant to supply the requisite documents, if any, required for the settlement of the claim within a period of 10 days from the date of order and, thereafter, the complainant is directed to supply the requisite documents to the OP within a period of one month and then the OP is directed to settle the claim within a period of two months from the receipt of documents. However, it is made clear that, in case, the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim, he has a right to approach the Forum again, as per law. No order as to costs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 

8.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.