BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 415 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 04.09.2013.
Date of Decision:16.11.2016
Surender Kumar son of Sh. Kisan Pal Singh, resident of village Khark Khurd, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- United India Insurance Company 24, White Road Chennai.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd. 5, Nehru Market Circular Road, Opp. Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.
- United India Insurance Company, Red Cross Bhavan Mini Zoo Road, Bhiwani
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Sh. Mukesh Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased Sonalika Rhino Winner for amount of Rs. 7 lacs and 50 thousands. It is alleged that the said vehicle was registered with Registration Authority office of District Bhiwani and the vehicle in question bearing No. HR-16G-2493 had been insured with UIIC during the period of 24.04.2010 upto 23.04.2011 but said vehicle met with an accident on dated 21.09.2010. It is alleged that he informed about said accident to the concerned police station and nakal rapat no. 6 dated 21.09.2010. It is alleged that the complainant informed about the said accident to OP no. 3 without any delay and completed paper formalities in this regard but the said company again sent a letter to complainant on dated 09.03.2011. It is alleged that the complainant visited to the office of the OPs for claim but did not pay any heed towards the grievances of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that Sh. R.K. Jain had submitted his detailed report and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,37,565/- It is submitted that the complainant had intimated the OP no. 3 on 27.09.2010 after a delay of seven days. It is submitted that the OP no. 3 had sent letter dated 29.09.2010 followed by reminders dated 01.02.2011 and 07.03.2011 but complainant failed to fulfill the formalities. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure CW-1 to Annexure CW-4 and Exhibit CW1 to CW5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. On the other hand, counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R10 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that after the accident on 21.09.2010, the complainant informed the OP and also informed the concerned police station on the same day and the rapat no. 6 dated 21.09.2010 is Annexure CW/1. The complainant completed the necessary formalities by submitting the required documents to the OP. The vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of the company.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP is ready to settle the claim of the complainant, subject to submission of original driving license, vehicle for re-inspection and spot surveyor report. He also made statement to this effect, which was recorded separately.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on the record. The contention of the counsel for the OP that the vehicle for inspection is required by the company, cannot be considered because the counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit that the vehicle in question has already been sold out by the complainant on 17.06.2016 to Jai Parkash son of Moti Lal. The OP have produced the surveyor report dated 30.11.2010 as Annexure R-9, wherein a loss of Rs. 1,37,565/- has been assessed by the surveyor. There is no letter of the OP after 07.03.2011 demanding the documents from the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the OP has committed the deficiency in service because he has failed to pay the claim to the complainant without any justification. We allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay the amount of loss of Rs. 1,37,565/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 16.11.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
