Haryana

Karnal

EA/24/2015

Pawan Kumar Gupta S/oRam Krishan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Dheeraj Sachdeva

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.                                                                                 

Execution  No.24 of 2015

Date of Instt. 6.04.2015

Date of decision.8.10.2015

 

Pawan Aggarwal resident of house no.90, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant/DH

                                         Vs.

1.United India Insurance Company Ltd.GT Road, near Bus stand, Shree Durga Bhawani Mandir, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                  …..JD/Opposite Party.

                                                  Application u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                                     Protection Act.

 

 

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

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

                  Sh.Anil Sharma………..Member.

 

Argued by    Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the DH/complainant.

                  Sh.Sudhakar Mittal  Advocate for the JD/OP.   

 

ORDER

                    Pawan Kumar Gupta  Decree Holder filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (herein after referred to as the Act) which was accepted by this Forum  vide order dated 29.1.2015 and the following order was passed:

 

                   “Therefore we direct the OP to make the payment of the sum insured within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order subject to production of requisite documents i.e. Registration Certificate and subrogation letter etc. in view of the ratio laid down in (vii)supra). The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

2.                   The complainant/DH filed application  u/s 27 of the Act on the ground that said order was not complied with by the JD even after lapse of one month.

 

3.                   The OP/JD filed reply to the said application raising objection that  the application is not maintainable, as the complainant himself failed to comply with the order dated 29.1.2015.  The OP was directed to make payment of the sum insured after obtaining registration certificate of the vehicle and subrogation letter etc., but despite passing long time, the complainant did not hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle to the OP. It has also been submitted that OP/JD is ready to pay the sum insured after production of the registration certificate and subrogation letter as per the order.

 

4.                   The complainant/DH filed rejoinder to the said reply of the OP wherein it has been submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the JD that registration certificate of the vehicle was not issued  and this fact was mentioned in the original complaint.  The complainant/DH approached the OP/JD for production of the subrogation letter, but the OP/JD  with  intent to get benefit of flexibility of law  has not complied with the order.

 

5.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                   The perusal of the order dated 29.1.2015 reveals that complainant in his original complaint submitted that he had deposited documents  of the vehicle, which was purchased on 19.10.2009, with the Registration Authority, Karnal, but the said vehicle was stolen on 14.10.2010.The vehicle was not  registered by the Registration Authority on the date of theft of the same. Therefore, there could be no question of issuing registration certificate in respect of the said vehicle after theft. However, in the order dated 29.1.2015, the OP was directed to pay the sum insured within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order subject to production of requisite documents i.e. registration certificate and subrogation letter etc. 

 

  7.                This Forum has no power to review the order dated 29.1.2015, therefore, objections filed by the OP/JD cannot be brushed aside. Accordingly, the objection of the OP/JD is accepted and the application u/s 27 of the Act filed by the complainant/DH stands dismissed. However, the complainant/DH would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 29.1.2015 regarding production of the registration certificate, in accordance with the law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:08.10.2015                                                                             

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.                                                                                 

Complaint No.865 of 2011

Date of Instt. 23.1.2011.

Date of decision.01.12.2014.

 

Pawan Aggarwal resident of house no.90, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                         Vs.

1.United India Insurance Company Ltd.GT Road, near Bus stand, Shree Durga Bhawani Mandir, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.The United India Insurance Company Ltd.Regd. & Head Office 24, Whites Road,  Chennai through its Chairman/Director.

 

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

              Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                         Protection Act.

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Argued by  Sh.HemantTayal  Advocate for the complainant.

                  Sh.Sudhakat Mittal  Advocate for the OPs.   

ORDER

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against the OP on the grounds that  the complainant had obtained a medical claim policy bearing No. 110701/48/10/07/00000305 valid from 26.8.2010 to 25.8.2011 and an identity card bearing No.UI-Gold-17082392 was issued to him. It has been further alleged that during July, 2011 the complainant had gone to Bangalaore where he became serious and was admitted in the  hospital and spent Rs.24,171/- on his treatment.  Thereafter, he subamitted all the relevant documents with theOP but the claim was not paid to him. Thus, he has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and has prayed that the Ops be directed to make the payment of Rs.24171/0 alongwiht compensation for the harassment cuased to him and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit alongwith some other documents.

 

2.                   On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties and that the complaint against the  Ops was not maintainable. It has been also  contended that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

                      On merits, issuance of the policy and ailment of the complainant was not disputed but it was contended that, claim of the complainant has been repudiated as NO CLAIM   as the complainant has failed to produce the  relevant information. It was further contended that  there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint was sought. Sh.H.C.Munjal, Branch Manager of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

 

3.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.              Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has claimed medical reimbursement under the policy which the complainant had incurred during ailment. However, as per the case of the OPs, claim of the complainant has been made  as NO CLAIM   vide letter Ex.R2 as the complainant has failed to produce the  relevant information. Therefore, obtaining of the policy by the complainant and intimating the OP regarding lodging of the claim with the OP is not disputed.

 

5.            However, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Ops vide Ex.R2 on the ground that they have not received all the documents but after going through the  Ex.R2, it merges that queries put to the complainant are not  relevant so as to reject the claim of the complainant and it seems that the  said  queries have been unnecessarily raised without any basis and only to reject the mediclaim of the complainant. Therefore, in such circumstances, issuance of Ex.R2 is unwarranted and as such  it has to be held that there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops  for not making payment of Rs. 24,171/- to the complainant.

 

 6.                  Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.24, 171/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.12.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards  legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the 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 1.12.2014.                                                 (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                               President.

                                                                      Distirct Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

                        Smt.Shanti Devi Vs. State of Haryana.

 

Present           Sh.G.P.Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                      Sh.Mohit Goyal Advcoate for the OP no.2.

                      OP No.1 ex-parte.

        

                      In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the complainant, the present complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant shall be at liberty  to avail the remedy available under the law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated 2.12.2014.                                                 (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                               President.

                                                                      Distirct Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                      (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                               Member.

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.                                                                                 

Execution  No.24 of 2015

Date of Instt. 6.04.2015

Date of decision.8.10.2015

 

Pawan Aggarwal resident of house no.90, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant/DH

                                         Vs.

1.United India Insurance Company Ltd.GT Road, near Bus stand, Shree Durga Bhawani Mandir, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                  …..JD/Opposite Party.

              Application u/s 12 of the Consumer

                         Protection Act.

 

 

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

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma………..Member.

 

Argued by    Sh.Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for the DH/complainant.

                  Sh.Sudhakat Mittal  Advocate for the JD/OP.   

 

ORDER

                    Pawan Kumar Gupta  Decree Holder filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, (herein after referred to as the Act) which was accepted  vide order dated 29.1.2015 by this Forum and the following order was passed:

 

                   “Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.24, 171/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.12.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards  legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the 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.”

3.                   The complainant/DH filed execution u/s 27 of the Act on the ground that said order was not complied with by the JD even after lapse of one month.

 

4.                   The OP/JD filed reply to the said application raising objections that application u/s 27 of the Act is not maintainable as the complainant himself failed to comply with the order dated 29.1.2015.  The OP was directed to make payment of the sum insured after obtaining registration certificate of the vehicle and subrogation letter but despite passing long time, the complainant did not hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle to the OP. It has also been submitted that OP/JD is ready to pay the sum insured after production of the registration certificate and subrogation letter as per the order.

 

5.                   The complainant/DH filed rejoinder to the said reply of the OP wherein it has been submitted that it was well within the knowledge of the JD that registration certificate of the vehicle was not done and this fact was mentioned in the original complaint.  The complainant/DH approached the OP/JD for production of the subrogation letter but the OP/JD is intend to get benefit of flexibility of law and has not complied with the order.

 

6.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.                   The perusal of the order dated 29.1.2015 reveals that complainant in his original complaint submitted that he had deposited documents  of the vehicle which was purchased on 19.10.2009 with the Registration Authority, Karnal but the said vehicle was stolen on 14.10.2010.Thus, the vehicle was not by the Registration Authority on the date of theft of the same. Therefore, there should be no question of issuing registration certificate in respect of the s aid vehicle. However, in the order dated 29.1.2015, the OP was directed to pay the sum insured within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order subject to production of requisite documents i.e. registration certificate and subrogation letter etc. 

 

                      This Forum has no power to review the order dated 29.1.2015, therefore, objections filed by the OP/JD cannot be brushed aside. Accordingly, the objection of the OP/JD  is accepted and the application u/s 27 of the Act filed by the complainant/DH stands dismissed. However, the complainant/DH would be at liberty to challenge the order4 dated 29.1.2015 regarding production of the registration certificate in accordance with the law. The  parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:07.10.2015                                                                             

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.