Quick Contact
- Office No.101, Himland House, Commercial Complex,Karampura, Delhi-110015, India
- 8171974067
- info@lawvs.com
Copyright ©2025 Lawvs.com | All Rights Reserved
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION; AT XXXX; NEW
DELHI
C.C. NO. xxxx OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
XXXX :
COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
XXXX : OPPOSITE PARTY
D.O.H.:- …….2023
REPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
THE COMPLAINANT TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO THE COMPLAINT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.
That the present Replication is
filed on behalf of the Complainant in reply to Written Statement filed by answering
Opposite Party. It is stated that the Opposite Party has made libelous and
slanderous allegations in their written statement against the Complainant and
the Opposite Party reserves the right to initiate the legal action as warranted
under the law against the Opposite Party.
2.
Without prejudice to the foregoing
and without in any manner admitting any of the submissions, contentions and
allegations made in the Written Statement by answering Opposite Party save and except those expressly admitted, the Complainant are
tendering its replication to the written
statement as under:-
REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the contents of para 1
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
complaint filed is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious and is therefore
liable to be dismissed with costs.
2. That the contents of para 2
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
complaint as filed is without any cause of action and hence is liable to be
dismissed forthwith.
3. That the contents of para 3
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
complainant being a profit making undertaking falls outside the purview of the
Consumer Protection Act. It is further denied that the complaint filed is bad
in law and liable to be dismissed.
4. That the contents of para 4
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the claim
of the complainant stands duly settled. It is further denied that the complaint
as put forth by the complainant is nothing but a cock and bull story to satiate
his ulterior motives.
5. That the contents of para 5
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
discharge voucher dated 08.07.2022 duly signed and executed by the complainant
and the amount of Rs.45,49,988/- transferred to his account corroborates the
full, and final discharge of complainant's claim as raised under the Marine
Inland Specific Voyage policy bearing No. 22876408 in the name of Xxxx valid
from 26-721 till the end of voyage. It is further denied that no protest of any
sort was ever raised by the complainant while signing of the discharge voucher
or till the amount got transferred in his account. It is further denied that
the filing of the present complaint is an afterthought and a subterfuge. It is
further denied that the complaint as filed is nothing but misuse of law.
6. That the contents of para 6
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
entire calculation was shared with the complainant before proceeding with the
settlement of the claim. It is further denied that the complainant had voluntarily
settled the claim without any demur, had it been the case of forced settlement
complainant was at liberty to sign/ execute the discharge voucher under protest
but the same was never done by him.
7. That the contents of para 7
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that entire
calculation and deductions made in the claim amount was done after getting the
survey conducted in the case by the IRDAI approved surveyor and the same was
duly communicated to the complainant over emails as well. It is further denied
that certain deductions were required to be made on various accounts such as
Depreciation, exclusion of GST and TCS as the insured are eligible to get input
credit for the same, claim of transportation and insurance premium, with GST,
Pre-existing damages upto5% and depreciation of 5% based on age and useful life
of vehicle and most importantly, non-supply of document such as LR. It is
further denied that after all the calculations Net payable amount came to be
45,49,988/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and
Eighty Eight only) and the same was duly paid to the complainant. Judgment cited in this
para is not applicable to the present case and hence the same is denied.
8. That the contents of para 8
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that bald
plea of fraud, coercion, duress is not tenable. It is further denied that the
party who desires to set up this plea should establish the same by prima facie
placing the sufficient material qua the same. It is further denied that the
settlement entered between the complainant and opposite party was absolutely
voluntary.
9. That the contents of para 9
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
complainant has not come to this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands. It is further
denied that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
as such and the complainant being absolutely frivolous and devoid of any merit
is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. That the contents of para 10
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the revised
assessment of claim of Rs.45,49,988 was duly communicated by the surveyor to
the Complainant vide email dated 25/05/2022 against which the Complainant
willfully and voluntarily gave his approval over email dated 22/06/2022.
It is further
denied that the vide email dated 25/05/2022, the surveyor had categorically
assessed the claim amount against the claimed amount of the Complainant,
wherein as stated in para no.7, certain necessary deductions were made by the
surveyor.
11. That the contents of para 11
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Complainant
was made aware to provide signed and stamped discharge voucher post which the
payment of claim would be released in his favor. It is further denied that the
discharge voucher was signed and stamped on 08.07.2022 by the Complainant
without any protest or any grievance whatsoever.
12. That the contents of para 12
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that subsequent
to which the payment of Rs. 45,49,988 was made to the account details of the
Complainant on 15/07/2022, as already admitted in the accompanying consumer
complaint.
13. That the contents of para 13
of the preliminary objections are wrong and denied. It is denied that the
Complainant has failed to acknowledge that the stone crushing machine and parts
pertaining to subject consignment were used machinery items. It is further
denied that legitimate deductions were made by the surveyor towards the claim
of the Complainant.
REPLICATION TO THE
PARAWISE REPLY:-
1. That the contents of para 1
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that thus complainant herein being a
commercial profit making entity squarely falls outside the purview of Consumer
protection Act which is a beneficial piece of legislation.
2. That the contents of para 2
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that complainant voluntarily entered
into settlement with respect to its claim and had executed a valid discharge voucher
qua the same. It is further denied that no protest was raised or registered at
the same of the execution of the discharge voucher or till the transfer of the
amount in its account. It is further denied that the complaint filed is an
afterthought and subterfuge to mint money.
3. That the contents of para 3
of the reply are matter of record, hence need no replication and those of the
corresponding para of the complaint are reiterated as correct.
4. That the contents of para 4
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that complainant miserably failed to
supply GR/LR as needed by the opposite party for claim processing. It is further
denied that claim processing requires additional set of documents other than
one submitted at the time of issuance of policy which complainant failed to
provide to the opposite party.
5-7. That the contents of paras 5-7
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the claim processing is a complete
process which is supposed to go through various stages, inspections and
document scrutiny. It is further denied that final calculation of the claim
amount is arrived at after due scrutiny of the documents and in accordance with
the policy terms and conditions.
8-9. That the contents of paras 8-9
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the complaint is miserably failed
to supply the requisite documents such LR, copy of FIR, police report, pre
dispatch inspection, claim bill etc. as needed by the opposite party.
10. That the contents of para 10
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct.
11. That the contents of para 11
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct.
12. That the contents of para 12
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the genuine calculation was shared
with the complainant which further necessitated certain clarification before
final claim amount could be arrived at.
13. That the contents of para 13
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that there was no compulsion on the
14. That the contents of para 14
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that calculation of the claim put forth
by the complainant was absolutely vague and baseless.
15. That the contents of para 15
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that calculation after due scrutiny and
representations was shared with the complainant. It is further denied that there
was no compulsion on the complainant to settle the claim. It is further denied
that whatever calculation transpired from the surveyors end was shared with the
complainant openly, as far as deduction of 25% is concerned, it is submitted
that the said deduction was made in the absence of recovery documents i.e. LR
which admittedly has not been submitted by the Complainant. It is further
denied that vide email dated 16/06/022, the surveyor had categorically informed
the Complainant that the consignment transported by him after taking on hire
vehicle from Xxxx (fleet owner/ frailer provider) was on payment receipt
without LR/GR of Public Carrier and as such no provision of carrier act can
attach to Mr. Xxxx on the basis of payment receipt. It is further denied that
the e-way bill dated 26/07/2021 was generated by 06 ARE XXXX- Xxxxs (the
Complainant) and hence, the Complainant was deemed self-carrier (Private
Carrier) of the consignment.
16-18.That the contents of paras 16-18 of the reply are wrong and denied
and those of the corresponding paras of the complaint are reiterated as
correct. It is denied that complainant was duly asked to provide documents to
substantiate its claim, however, it failed to do so and hence the amount as
admissible after making deductions in the absence of clarifications was
conveyed to the complainant. It is further denied that complainant made
multiple statements
19. That the contents of para 19
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that if complainant was not willing to
accept the approved claim amount he could have mentioned his protest or denied
the claim altogether. It is further denied that no protest was raised either on
the email dated 22-6-22 or on the discharge voucher or until the receipt of the
claim amount form the opposite party. It is further denied that the complaint
as filed is an afterthought, subterfuge, hence is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
20. That the contents of para 20
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that disputing the settlement afterwards
is
21. That the contents of para 21
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct.
22. That the contents of para 22
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that since complainant has voluntarily,
without any demur or protest accepted the insurance claim for Rs. 45,49,988, it
has got no cause of action to approach the Hon'ble Forum at this stage.
23. That the contents of para 23
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that since complainant has voluntarily,
without any demur or protest accepted the insurance claim for Rs. 45,49,988, it
has got no cause of action to approach the Hon'ble Forum at this stage.
24. That the contents of para 24
of the reply are matter of record, need no replication and those of the
corresponding para of the complaint are reiterated as correct.
25. That the contents of para 25
of the reply are matter of record, need no replication and those of the
corresponding para of the complaint are reiterated as correct.
26. That the contents of para 26
of the reply are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the complainant being a profit
making undertaking falls outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It
is further denied that the complaint being filed is bad in law and liable to be
dismissed.
27. That the contents of para 27
of the reply, need no replication and those of the corresponding para of the complaint
are reiterated as correct.
Prayer para of
the written statement are absolutely wrong and specifically denied. The Opposite
party is not entitled to the relief claimed for.
Any allegation made in the
written statement and are not specifically denied herein are absolutely wrong
and specifically denied and its non-specifically denial shall not be taken as
an admission on the part of the complainant.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the relief
may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite
Party as prayed in the main complaint, in the interest of justice, equity and
circumstances of the case.
Pass such further order or
orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper of the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed
accordingly.
DELHI COMPLAINANT
THROUGH
DATED:
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx,
xxx
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION; AT XXXX; NEW
DELHI
C.C. NO.xxxx OF 2023.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
XXXX : COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
XXXX : OPPOSITE PARTY
Affidavit of Xxxx, Proprietor of M/s. Xxxxs, having
office at xxxxxxxxxx , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That I am the Complainant in
the captioned case and am therefore, competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the
accompanying replication to the reply have been read over and explained to me
in vernacular language and having understood the same I say that the facts
stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.That the facts as stated above in the
affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of the same is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Delhi on this ____, day of August, 2023
that the facts stated in my above Affidavit are true to my knowledge and no
part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
