Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/44/2012

Samiullakahn - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

MR.J.S.

18 Jan 2013

ORDER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency of service.

 

1. The complainant’s case in brief are that  he was a Package policy holder from  O.P. pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.KA-13 A-1687. The complainant had paid Rs.8,149/- towards insurance policy on 22/12/2010.

 

1. The vehicle met with  accident  near Vynad, Calicut on 22/01/2011 and same was intimated to Vynad branch on 24/01/2011.

 

1. The O.P. has conducted spot survey and obtained claim form of the complainant and assured the complainant to compensate to the loss as per the company  terms and conditions.

 

1. The complainant has incurred expenses of Rs.3,500/- for lifting of the vehicle and has paid Rs.20,350/- to the Karnataka State Electricity Board for damage done to the electric pole. The documents have been produced to the O.P. and the O.P. has not paid  the said amount and there by there is deficiency of service by the O.P.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted about issue of policy to the vehicle and accident.

 

1. The O.P. has stated that this was not within its knowledge about  payment of Rs.3,500/- and Rs.20,350/- respectively by the complainant. The complainant has accepted Rs.49,750/- as full settlement.

 

1. The complaint as brought by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether  the complaint as brought by the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? If, so,
   2. Whether deficiency of service by the O.P.?
   3. To what order the parties are entitled?

 

1. The findings for the above points are as follows:

Point No.1: Negative.

Point No.2 & 3: Does not arise.

 

                                           REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:- The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service by the O.P. as the O.P. had not paid Rs.3,500/-  expenses incurred for lifting the vehicle and Rs.20,350/- paid by him to the  K.E.B. for damages caused to the electric pole at the time of accident.

 

1. The complainant’s case in brief are that  he had obtained policy from the O.P. on 22/10/2010 for his vehicle  bearing No.KA-13 A-1687 and said vehicle met with an accident on 21/01/2011. His further case is that  during the time of accident there was damage to the electric pole which he has paid to the K.E.B. and also incurred expenses for lifting the vehicle.  He has stated that he has given necessary documents to the O.P. for payment of the same and the O.P. has not paid the same.

 

1. The O.P. has stated that the complainant has taken Rs.49,750/- as full settlement and therefore he is not entitled for compensation. The complainant cannot be a consumer as defined in the Act in order to claim the amount  which he is personally claiming and therefore the Forum has  no jurisdiction to decide and give necessary relief.

 

1. The consumer has been defined under section 2(d) of the Act of the definition is reads along with that policy taken by the complainant , it can be said he is a consumer, but the question would be whether  the Forum can go into complicated  question of law and fact under the Consumer Protection Act.  The answer would  have to be in the negative for the reason that jurisdiction is of summary nature and  in the present case it is  to be decide whether  complainant is entitled for amount for lifting the vehicle  and also payment made to the K.E.B.  and this has to be decided before the Civil Court  and not by this Forum.

 

1. POINT NO.2 &3:- Does not arise for consideration as the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

 

1. In view of the above following

 

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant is at liberty to pursue the case before the civil court or before the claims tribunal  which ever   has jurisdiction to decide the case.