BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.255 of 2017.
Date of institution: 25.09.2017.
Date of decision:23.04.2019.
Mahavir Gora son of Sh. Dariya Singh, r/o Village Mundri, District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Insurance Company Ltd. Kaithal through its Manager.
….Respondent.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. S.P.Kala, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant got insured his tractor bearing registration No.HR08V/6407 with the Op vide policy No.100264330 for the period valid w.e.f. 27.09.2016 to 26.09.2017. It is alleged that during the subsistence of the policy, the said tractor met with an accident. The complainant brought the said tractor in the workshop of Satish & Co., Karnal Road, near Sugar Mill, Kaithal on 18.11.2016 and he spent Rs.22,450/- on the repair of said tractor. The complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents and the Op paid an amount of Rs.17,199.50 paise to the complainant on 18.12.2016. It is further alleged that after 5/6 days of handing over the tractor, the complainant again went to Satish & Company and complained about the leakage of oil and on checking, the differential housing was found crack. The said differential housing was changed by Satish & Company on 30.12.2016 by paying Rs.50,400/- to Satish & Company for the said differential housing. The complainant asked the Op to make the payment of said defect i.e. differential housing but the Op did not pay the same. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. In fact, on the application of complainant, the answering Op appointed Sh. Naveen Kumar Gupta, Surveyor & loss assessor and the said surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.17,200/- which was duly paid by the insurance company to the complainant. The complainant accepted the said amount without any objection. There was no crack in the differential housing in the alleged accident. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, Mark-CA to Mark-CC and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavits, Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Mark-R1 & Mark-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant got insured his tractor bearing registration No.HR08V/6407 with the Op vide policy No.100264330 for the period valid w.e.f. 27.09.2016 to 26.09.2017. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. The main grievance of the complainant is that the amount of repair has been paid by the Op to the tune of Rs.17,200/- on 18.12.2016 after submitting the bills of Rs.22,450/-. The said fact is also not disputed. However, the complainant alleged that after 5/6 days of handing over the tractor, the complainant again came to Satish & Company and complained about the leakage of oil. On checking, differential housing was found crack and the same has been changed by the aforesaid company on 30.12.2016 by paying the amount of Rs.50,400/-.
We have gone through the record. The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.50,400/- in lieu of differential housing crack but he has failed to place on record any evidence which could prove that he had given intimation regarding the differential housing crack to the company or he had lodged the claim with the Op rather it might be possible that after 5/6 days of handing over the tractor, the second accident may be happened. Without submitting the claim to the insurance company or without repudiating the claim, how the complainant can approach before this Forum, as no cause of action arose to the complainant for claiming the above-said amount. Mere placing the detail of the repair charges or replacement of the instrument which was required for repair of the differential housing crack does not prove the claim of complainant. So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has wrongly claimed the amount of Rs.50,400/-, therefore, the present complaint qua claiming the above-said amount, is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:23.04.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
