BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 99 of 2012                                                                           

                                                        Date of Institution         :    23.5.2012

                                                          Date of Decision   :    1.9.2016            

Ashwani Sharma, aged about 35 years son of Sh.Tikam Chand Sharma, r/o Ward No.11, near Mama Bhanja shop Ellenabad,  distt. Sirsa.

            ….Complainant.                     

                   Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through  its Divisional Manager, Sirsa.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-9, Rohit Chambers, 5^th Floor, Janambhoomi Marg, Fort, Mumbai.

                                                                             ..…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………PRESIDENT

                     SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…………MEMBER.     

Present:       Sh.Sandeep Sharma,  Advocate for the complainant.

        Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate  for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                   Case of complainant, in brief, is that being registered owner of Tata-Indigo CS bearing registration no.HR-44D-0993, he got insured the vehicle  comprehensively from the op-company vide policy no.02090031100110024016  under Private car package policy after paying Rs.12410/-, which was valid upto Mid-night 10.11.2011.  On 30.8.2011, vehicle in question met with an accident. Complainant informed the Op-company. Surveyor inspected the vehicle  and instructed the complainant to get repaired and submitted the bills of repair at the office. Accordingly, the complainant got repaired the vehicle and submitted the bills of Rs.6098/-. But, despite several requests and legal notice sent to the opposite parties, the said amount of Rs.6098/- has not been paid to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, op appeared and contested the case by filing written version. It is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured and later on it met with accident. On the request of complainant surveyor was appointed, who had given his detailed report. It is replied that after repairs, the vehicle was re-inspected by the Surveyor and it was found that the parts were properly replaced with new one and thus, the claim approval note was issued of Rs.5203/-. The payment was made to the complainant vide cheque no.377736 dt. 9.1.2012 for Rs. 5203/-. Ops further denied remaining contents of complaint.

3.                By way of evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Vat invoice Ex.C1, receipt dt. 31.8.2011 Ex.C2, survey report Ex.C3, policy schedule Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5 and  postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8. Whereas, Ops have produced affidavit of Divisional Manager Ex.R1, policy schedule Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

5.                Ops have already made the payment for the loss suffered by the complainant on the basis of surveyor report vide cheque no.377736 dt. 9.1.2012. In our view, there is no delay in settlement of the claim case of the complainant because date of accident is 30.8.2011 and payment has been made through cheque dt. 9.1.2012 i.e. within the period of approx. four months. As such, complaint deserves dismissal. We order accordingly. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                            President,

Dated:1.9.2016.                                 Member.             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.