BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.29/2018.
Date of instt.:16.01.2018.
Date of Decision: 13.02.2019Date of Decision:07.01.2019
Narender Kumar Singla aged 60 years son of Sh.Babu Daya Krishan resident of H. No.2392 Urban Estate Jind Tehsil & District Jind Pin Code 120112 (Haryana).
……….Complainant.
Versus
- L.R.Automobile L.R.Hyundai, National Highway-65 Ambala Road Kaithal District Kaithal through its General Manager.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited Ambala Road Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
.……..Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh.Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Ms. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Davender Singh, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Sunil Polist, Adv. for OP No.1.
Shri Nikhil Gupta, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(Jagmal Singh, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got his centro car bearing registration No.HR-31E-7918 insured with OP vide cashless insurance policy receipt No.35440081170000006391 having validity from 31.08.2017 to 30.08.2018. During the insurance period the insured car got damaged accidentally and intimation regarding this was sent to Ops which asked the complainant to bring the damaged car on their authorized service centre. On this, the complainant brought the damaged vehicle to Op No.1 and got the vehicle repaired. Thereafter the officials of the OPs started demanded illegal commission/gratification for remaining repair of the damaged car and on refusal of paying the same by the complainant, the officials of the OPs started imposing one or the other wrong, false, vague terms and conditions. The complainant has duly completed all the required formalities as directed by the OPs but despite that his car was not repaired as per terms and conditions of cashless policy. The OPs had assessed a sum of Rs.6196/- on 12.12.2017 and refused to handover the car to the complainant and illegally retained the same and released the car after charging the said amount from the complainant after so many days. The Ops have refused to pay the bill amount. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had visited the OP No.1 and asked to repair of front glass in cash as he wanted to save his NCB (35 %) which he had to avail in next insurance policy. The insurance policy was not a cashless policy. The present dispute is in between the complainant and Op No.2 as the insurance company has to see how to provide service to its customers and Rs.6196/- has been charged from the complainant against the repair of the car in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, jurisdiction and estoppal etc. have been taken. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Op No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, locus standi and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the complainant in violation of the policy terms and conditions did not give intimation to Op No.2 till date despite the fact that in condition No.1 it has been clearly mentioned that Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. The present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. All the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant in evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark CA and Mark CB. On the other hand the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and Op No.2 has tendered document Ex.RA on the case file.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Undisputedly, the vehicle car centro bearing No.HR31-7918 of the complainant is insured with the OP No.2 having validity from 31.08.2017 to 30.08.2018 as is evident through Mark CB. As per complainant his vehicle got damaged in an accident and regarding this intimation was sent to the OP No.2 and on its asking he got his vehicle repaired from OP No.1 by spending Rs.6196/- but the Op No.2 has refused to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured vehicle during the subsistence of the policy.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has neither lodged any claim nor intimated about the accident to it, so the question of denying the claim as well as repudiation does not arise. The complainant himself has violated the condition no.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. From the material available on the case file it is clear that there is nothing on the case file to show that the complainant has given any intimation to the Ops or ever lodged any claim qua the repairing of his insured car to the insurance company. The complainant in support of his version has produced only affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark CA Invoice summary and Mark CB insurance policy. The complainant in our view failed to prove on the file that he had given any intimation about the accident to the insurance company or made any claim. In other way we can say that the complainant himself has violated the condition No.1 of the policy, which is reproduced as under:
Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.
It is not the case of the complainant that the OP No.2 has not supplied the terms and conditions of the policy to him and he was unaware of the same. The terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both the parties but perusal of the case file reveals that on one hand the complainant himself has violated the condition no.1 of the policy and on the other hand approached to this Forum with unclean hands. It is a settled principle of law that mere pleadings without any authentic evidence carries no values in the eyes of law, therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the Ops.
9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.13.02.2019.
(Jagmal Singh)
President
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member
Present: Shri Vikram Nain, proxy counsel for the complainant.
Shri Vikas Chahal proxy counsel for OPs.
Today local bar has suspended the work; therefore, the case is adjourned to 13.02.2019 for the purpose already fixed.
Dated:12.02.2019. Member. Member President.
Present: Shri Davender Singh, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Sunil Polist, Adv. for OP No.1.
Shri Nikhil Gupta, Adv. for Op No.2.
Arguments complete. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:13.02.2019. Member. Member President.
