DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 170 of 26.4.2016
Decided on: 4.5.2017
Amar Singh son of Sh.Ramu Singh R/o H.No.252, Shiv Colony Bhathha, Lachhman Dass, Ward No.25, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Avvon Autos through its owner/manager/Auth.Signatory Address:C-20-21, Caliber Market, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala- 140401.
2. Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter(India) Private Limited, Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana)-122050.
3. Mahesh Batra, Address: Batra Book Shop, Mohinder Ganj Bazzar Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala on behalf of Kirti Bhushan (agent) # 18B, New Dashmesh Colony, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala-140401.
4. Kirti Bhushan Bhushan (agent) # 18B, New Dashmesh Colony Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala-140401.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Address: 4-5-6 Block-E, Caliber Market, Patiala Road Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala through its Manager/Authorized Signatory-140401.
6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Address:A-25/27,Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Manager/authorized signatory-110002.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Rajinder Singh,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vikas Mittal,Adv.counsel for Op no.1.
Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Adv.counsel for OPs No.5&6.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Amar Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To supply the papers regarding claim amount of Rs.8400/- against policy No.233600/31/2015/2620 dated 28.8.2014.
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment & mental torture etc, alongwith interest @12% per annum
- To pay Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased motor cycle-Honda Shine , bearing registration No.PB-11-BH-1538, in the year 2013, from Op no.1 and was purchasing the policy every year. On 28.8.2014, he purchased insurance policy bearing No. 233600/31/2015/2620 for the said motor cycle and paid the required insurance fee to OP no.5 through OPs no.3&4. It is stated that OPs no.3&4 charged excess amount at the time of purchasing the insurance policy. In the month of March,2015, he visited OP no.1 for servicing and for getting other work of the motor cycle, it charged Rs.1500/- in cash for the same and also got his signatures on some papers. In the month of August,2015, he visited OPs no.1&2 for the renewal of the insurance policy. OPs no.3&4 prepared the cover note regarding new policy of the above said motor cycle. He requested them for the adjustment of Rs.250/-, charged extra in the previous year at the time of issuing the policy but they flatly refused to do so. Then he visited OPs no.5&6 for relaxation of premium amount as he had not taken any claim for the previous policy i.e. 29.8.2014 to 29.8.2015. On perusal of the matter properly it was disclosed by Ops no.5&6 that against policy No. 233600/31/2015/2620 dated 28.8.2014, a claim of Rs.8400/- was passed. He was surprised to know this because he has not claimed any claim against the above said policy and requested the OPs no.5&6 for supply of the papers but they refused. He also got served a legal notice dated 19.9.2015 upon the OPs. He also moved an application under RTI Act, seeking information regarding fraud played by the Ops. The Oriental Insurance Company, Chandigarh supplied the copies of papers regarding claim against the policy in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ops obtained his signatures on the blank papers. That the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice also amounts to deficiency in service. Due to this indifferent attitude of the Ops, he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.1,5&6 only . On notice they appeared and filed separate written versions. In the written version filed by Op no.1 it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the motor cycle Honda Shine from it. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the insurance policy bearing No.233600/31/2015/2620 for the said motor cycle after paying the requisite insurance fee. The amount charged for the insurance policy was as per the cover note . It is stated that on 16.3.2015 at about 4:00PM the complainant met with an accident and his motor cycle got damaged. The complainant brought the motor cycle to it for its repair by taking the accidental claim from the office of OPs no.5&6. The complainant himself signed the various documents i.e. job card, claim intimation form on 17.3.2015. He himself has given the driving licence of the motor cycle at the time of filing the claim. The surveyor clicked the photographs of the damaged motorcycle. Thereafter an estimate of Rs.12,450/- was prepared by it to be submitted with OPs no.5&6.After considering the same, the OPs no.5&6 passed the claim to the tune of Rs.11,224/-, out of which an amount of Rs.8400/- was paid by OPs no.5&6 to it and rest of the amount of Rs.2824/-was to be paid to the complainant. As a goodwill gesture it also gave a cash discount of Rs.1324/- to the complainant and he only paid an amount of Rs.1500/- for the repair of the motorcycle. There is no deficiency of service on its part. It denied all other averments made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version filed by OPs no.5&6 it is admitted that the motorcycle in question was insured vide policy No.233600/31/2015/2620, on receipt of premium of Rs.1028, for the period from 29.8.2014 to 28.8.2015. The previous policy was issued vide No.233600/31/2014/2050, on receipt of requisite premium as per endorsement mentioned on the insurance policy itself. It is submitted that on receipt of intimation from the complainant with regard to the damage of the motor cycle, Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss, who assessed the loss of Rs.8400/-(9065-665 as salvage). Accordingly the payment of Rs.8400/- was paid to OP no.1 by them from whom the complainant got the motorcycle repaired. The complainant has no cause and reason to file the present against them and is not entitled for any relief from them. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB, the affidavit of Sh.Gulzar Singh alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C33 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
6. The ld. counsel for OPs No.5&6 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Smt.Madhu Kaul, Deputy Manager of O.I.C. Ltd.,Ex.OPB, sworn affidavit of Sh.Neeraj Sharma, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence of OPs no.5&6, whereas the ld. counsel for the party No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPC, affidavit of Sh.Saransh, authorized representative of Avvon Autos alongwith document Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence of OP no.1.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant got insured his motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-11-BH-1538 from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. OP no.5 through Ops No.3&4, for the period from 29.8.2014 to 28.8.2015.At the time of purchase of the said policy, Ops no.3&4 charged extra amount from him and assured him that the same will be adjusted at the time of renewal of the policy for the next year. In the month of March,2015, he took his motor cycle to OP no.1 for its service, it charged Rs.1500/-from him and it had taken his signatures on some papers. In the month of August, 2015, he approached Ops for renewal of the insurance policy, the Ops no.3&4 issued the cover note without adjusting Rs.250/- which they had taken in excess from him at the time of issuance of the previous policy. He brought this fact into the notice of OP no.5, and requested to charge the premium ,taking this fact into consideration that he had not taken any claim during the subsistence of the previous policy.
9. The ld. counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that on 16.3.2015, the complainant brought his damaged motorcycle for its repair for taking accidental claim from OPs no.5&6.He submitted the estimate of repair of Rs.11,224/- to the insurance company. The Ops No.5&6 had paid him Rs.8400/- and remaining amount of Rs. 2824/- was to be paid by the complainant. However, complainant paid a sum of Rs.1500/- only. Thus the OP no.1 cannot be said to be deficient in rendering the service and the complaint filed qua it may kindly be dismissed with costs.
10. The ld. counsel for Ops no.5&6 argued that a sum of Rs.8400/- as assessed by the surveyor, pertaining to policy bearing No233600/31/2015/2620 dated 28.8.2014, has already been paid to the repairer . Hence the complainant has no reason to file a complaint and the same may kindly be dismissed.
11. In column meant for details of accident, in the motor claim form, Ex.C22, which is duly signed by the complainant, it is categorically mentioned that the motor cycle in question was met with an accident on 16.3.2014 at 4:00P.M. near railway colony, Patiala. Since from the said document, it is clear that on 16.3.2014 the motor cycle of the complainant was met with an accident. Thus the plea of the complainant that on 16.3.2014, he his motor cycle to OP no.1 just for service and not for accidental repair gests falsified and the plea of OP no.1 that on 16.3.2014, the complainant brought his accidental motor cycle for its repair and it raised invoice of Rs.11224/- Ex.C30 seems to be correct . It may be stated that it is not the case of the complainant that OP no.1 has not serviced the motor cycle properly, therefore, it cannot be said that OP no.1 is deficient in rendering the service and the complaint filed qua it is liable to be dismissed. The plea of the OP no.1 that on 16.3.2014, complainant brought his accidental vehicle for its repair and it raised tax invoice of Rs.11224/- Ex.C30 seems to be correct . Even we do not find any deficiency on the part of Ops no.5&6 because they have paid an amount of Rs.8400/- as repair charges to OP no.1 vide claim payment voucher, Ex.C31, on the basis of the loss assessed by the surveyor vide his report dated 19.3.2015, Ex.C19.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed against the Ops no.1, 5&6, with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:4.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
