Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 131.
Instituted on : 02.03.2017.
Decided on : 04.07.2018.
Ramesh Chander s/o Sh. Ved Singh H.No.2247, VPO Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil and District, Rothak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(Div.Office) Jawahar Market, Opp. Model Town, 323/21, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., B.O. 3 Trichy, Door No.19/1, 1st Floor, Kalpana Complex, Contonment, Birds road, Trichy, Distt. Tiruchechirppali, Tamil Nadu-620001.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & H.O.24, (Door No. ) Ground Floor, White Road, Chennai-600014(Tamil Nadu) Through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Ms.Deepa Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.D.N.Singhal, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant took an insurance policy No.09060531140160031500 from respondents for his vehicle TVS Apache RTR Rear Disc.CC vide registration No.HR-12V-1209. That the alleged vehicle was stolen when it was parked in front of his house. That FIR was lodged with the police and complainant submitted all the documents with the opposites party No.1 for settlement of his claim and it was told by opposite party No.1 that all the papers have been sent to Trichy(Policy issuing branch) on 04.03.2016 and since then the complainant is regularly making rounds of respondent’s office but no proper reply is being given by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the price of vehicle i.e. Rs.55174 /- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that there has been a gross negligence by the complainant himself in parking the vehicle without proper care. That the claimant has failed to submit the complete set of claim documents & as such the respondent company was constrained to decide the claim in the absence of complete set of claim documents despite specific correspondence with the claimant by respondent no.2. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, Ex.DW2/A, documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The main objection which was pressed before us during arguments by the counsel for the OP is that the complainant did not submit the relevant documents to the OPs. After perusing the records, it is clear that the complainant did everything to get his claim from the OPs and even issued a legal notice Ex.C4 for payment of the amount of claim. So the objection of the OPs in this regard is unacceptable.
6. In view of the above, complaint succeeds and it is directed that opposite parties shall pay Rs.55174/-(Rupees fifty five thousand one hundred seventy four only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
