Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/337/2013

Sanjay Dang - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Gupta,Adv

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	337 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	08.08.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	31.12.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sanjay Dang s/o Sh.Kewal Krishan Dang, R/o H.No.157, Sargodha Colony, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala, Haryana.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Ltd., SCO No.215-217, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

       

2]  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office : GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411006, through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased Brand New Volkswagen Vento TDI Highline Model Car from Swami Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (Volkswagen Authorised Dealer) on 24.1.2013 for his personal use (Annexure.C-1 & C-2). It is averred that there was a tie-up between the Swami Automobile and OP-Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. (OPs No.1 & 2) for insuring new cars and under this tie-up, the Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. assured the free Dep Cap (Zero Depreciation) Insurance of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company to the complainant on purchase of car in question.

         It is averred that the representative of the OPs had taken declaration from the complainant on the proposal form for Dep Cap (Zero Depreciation) cover, whereupon the OPs issued cover note No.MC1003749134 valid from 21.4.2013 onwards for sum insured of Rs.9,43,165/-. It is pleaded that Opposite Parties did not mention the amount of premium in the columns given in the cover note and write only the term ‘FOC’ (Free of Cost) therein and left maximum number of columns blank (Ann.C-3). It is alleged that the OPs never issued nor supplied the original policy of insurance and its terms & conditions to the complainant till date.         Unfortunately, the car in question met with an accident on 20.4.2013 and got badly damaged.  The incident was intimated to the Opposite Parties, whereupon a Surveyor, was appointed, who inspected the damaged vehicle and obtained repair estimate.  It is asserted that under the said insurance, the complainant was not liable to pay any depreciation on rubber/plastic parts in case the insurance claim arises, but inspite of all, the insurance company had deducted an amount of Rs.1,27,000/- from the total amount paid to the repairer under cashless tie-up.  The repairer refused to give the delivery of the car to the complainant on account of non-payment of depreciation amount. The matter was also agitated with the OPs, but to no effect. It is also asserted that since the complainant was facing lot of inconvenience, so he had to finally made the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to the repairer on 15.5.2013 (Ann.C-11 & C-12) under protest.  It is pleaded that on the request of complainant, the OPs only issued soft copy of the insurance policy (Ann.C-7). It is also pleaded that OPs illegally denied the refund of Rs.1,25,000/- wrongly charged from the complainant on account of depreciation.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case to certain extent.  It is denied that under the tie-up Dep Cap (zero Depreciation) insurance was undertaken by the OPs.  It is also denied that the complainant had given declaration for Dep Cap Cover.  It is stated that receipt of premium was not mentioned because the insurance coverage was issued as there was a tie-up between the Opposite Parties and the authorised dealer.  It is denied that the cover note was incomplete (Ann.C-1).  It is submitted that the policy alongwith terms was duly supplied to the complainant. 

 

         It is also submitted that on intimation of the accident, a Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss.  Further averred that the depreciation had to be deducted, as per the terms of the policy and thus rightly deducted the disputed amount.  It is also stated that terms of policy are sacrament and binding on the parties to the contract and in the present case, Dep Cap insurance was not provided, as alleged by the complainant.  It is pleaded that the repairer had rightly told the complainant that he was getting cashless settlement from the Opposite Parties after deduction of the depreciation amount.  It is further pleaded that the OPs are not liable to pay or refund amount of Rs.1,25,000/- being duly deducted as per the terms of the policy. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments.

 

5]       There is no dispute that the complainant on 24.1.2013 purchased brand new Volkswagen Vento TDI Highline Model Car from Swami Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (Volkswagen Authorised Dealer) for his personal use (Ann.C-1 & C-2). The factum that there is tie-up between the Opposite Parties i.e. authorised dealer Swami Automobile Pvt. Ltd. and Opposite Party Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company, for insuring the new cars, is also not opposed by the OPs. 

 

6]       It is alleged on behalf of the complainant that under the above tie-up, the Swami Automobile Pvt. Ltd. assured free Dep Cap (Zero Depreciation) Insurance of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company i.e. of OPs to the complainant on the purchase of abovesaid model of the car.  It is also submitted that the complainant had signed a declaration to that effect on the proposal form i.e. for Dep Cap (Zero Depreciation) cover.  Further submitted that on the basis of the proposal form filled-up by the complainant, the OPs issued cover note No.MC1003749134 valid from 21.4.2013 onwards for sum insured of Rs.9,43,165/-. Further, claimed that the Opposite Parties did not mention the amount of premium in the columns given in the cover note and only the term ‘FOC’ (Free of Cost) is written therein with maximum number of columns left blank (Ann.C-3).  The ld.Counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs never issued nor supplied the original policy for the insurance till date and they never supplied the copy of the original proposal form obtained from the complainant.

 

7]       The said car met with an accident on 20.4.2013, which was duly intimated to the Opposite Parties and a Surveyor was duly appointed by the Opposite Parties, inspected the damaged vehicle and on the instructions of the OPs, the said vehicle was repaired and bill amounting to Rs.303235/-lacs (Ann.C-11) was raised and the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,25,000/- towards depreciation for the repaired vehicle in order to get the delivery of the same. It is submitted that on the persistent request of the complainant, the OPs only issued soft copy of the insurance policy (Ann.C-7).

 

8]       Denying all the allegations of the complaint, the ld.Counsel for the OPs submitted that the OPs are not liable to pay/refund Rs.1,25,000/- as the same was deducted as per the terms of the policy towards depreciation amount.  It is submitted further that the OPs are not deficient in service and have not wrongly charged the depreciation amount as alleged by the complainant.  As the present policy is not issued for Dep-Cap cover, so the complainant was duly intimated vide e-mail dated 18.5.2013 (Ann.C-18) wherein it is specially written that if the complainant wants to opt for, Drive Assure, the complainant is required to pay additional premium. 

 

9]       The absence of the original proposal form lying in the custody of the OPs, shows mala-fide of the OPs. The allegations of the complainant that he signed a declaration for the Dep-Cap policy in the original proposal form is accordingly admitted and an adverse inference is drawn against the OPs; as they withheld the master piece of evidence i.e. original proposal form.  Further, the OPs for the reasons best known to them, failed to produce on record any document showing the dispatch of the policy in question to the complainant, which followed the alleged cover note issued to the complainant on the basis of original proposal form filled by the complainant. The Opposite Parties not even placed on record the copy of any understanding/tie-up singed between the OPs and the Swami Automobiles Private Limited, which could have been looked into, to ascertain that whether under the tie-up between the parties, the free of cost insurance, provided to the purchasers of the car includes Dep-Cap (Zero Depreciation) insurance or not. 

 

10]      There is no dispute to the fact that the vehicle in question was duly covered under the policy issued to the complainant and also the accident of the said vehicle during the coverage period. The expenses to the tune of Rs.303235/- (Ann.C-11) was incurred on the repair of the vehicle in question is also not in dispute. The curtailing of an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from the insurance claim on account of depreciation is highly unjustified as it was a Dep-Cap (Zero Depreciation) coverage. Therefore, the complainant is duly entitled for reimbursement of said amount from the Opposite Parties.  The OPs by not paying the said amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant rendered deficient services to the complainant, which too needs to be compensated. 

 

11]      In view of the above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally as under:_

1. To reimburse an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- paid by the complainant towards depreciation;
2. To pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for causing him harassment and mental agony on account of deficient services;
3.  To pay litigation expenses amounting to Rs.7000/-.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be jointly & severally liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount as mentioned in sub-para (i) & (ii) from the date of filing of this complaint, besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-, as aforesaid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st Dec., 2015                                                    

                                                                                                Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                      

                                                                       

                                                                                Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                MEMBER

Om 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.337 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 31st day of December, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Priti Malhotra)
Member	President	Member