Decided on March 04,2021

Vishwa Nath Puri Appellant


ANUP K.THAKUR,J. - (1.) This Revision Petition No.1090 of 2020 filed on 17.12.2020 challenges the impugned order of the State Commission, Delhi, dated 9.9.2020 in FA No.460 of 2016. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal filed against the order of District Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, in CC No. 31 of 2015. In turn, the District Forum had found that the petitioner/complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP- Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited.
(2.) Very briefly, facts are that while the petitioner/complainant (complainant hereafter) was driving from Chandigarh to Delhi, his vehicle (DLC-12-C- 3182) was hit by a dog. Radiator and other parts were damaged. Upon filing an insurance claim under policy No.P4008573966 with the respondent-OP- insurance company (OP hereafter) on 7.6.2015, the same was settled by the OP for only Rs.12,995/-. This was against invoice No.1503631 dated 17.07.2015 for Rs.38,738/- and expenses in towing etc. of Rs. 18,620/-. Aggrieved, Complainant approached the OP, the Insurance Ombudsman vide letter dated 01.09.2015 as also the Chairman IRDA vide letter dated 10.12.2015 but in vain. He then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.18,620/- with Rs.10,000/- towards punitive damages, mental agony etc. The complaint was resisted through a written version filed on behalf of the OP; however, the OP thereafter did not remain present when the complaint was finally heard and disposed off by the District Forum.
(3.) As noted earlier, the District Forum did not find any deficiency in service by the OP. It is apt to reproduce below the relevant portion of the order of the District Forum: "We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully. Complainant was having an insurance policy No. P4008573966 of OP and when he was going to Chandigarh to Delhi from his vehicle No.DLC12C3128 his car had met with an accident due to hit by a dog and sustained damages to the radiator, and other parts and front grill. He filed a claim on 06.07.15 of Rs.38,738/- but the OP had only paid a sum of Rs. 12,995/- to the Complainant vide letter dated 20.11.15 copy of which is mark as Mark 'A' for the purpose of identification. In view of the above, it transpires that as per OP's letter dated 20.11.15 the OP reimbursed 35% amount for radiator Assy for an amount of Rs.2535/- and 50% amount Coolant Additive for Rs.741/ after necessary deduction of depreciation amount. The following parts were not considered as there was no accidental external impact on these parts:- i. Silicone Adhesive SE ii. Magnetic Professi iii. Spark Plug iv. Ignition Coil With No expert evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the complainant. In view of the above, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.