Haryana

Karnal

CC/58/2017

M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Nidhi Jain

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.58 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 09.02.2017

                                                         Date of decision:23.07.2018

 

M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd., M-15, Industrial Area, Sonepat-131001 (A private limited company incorporated under the company’s Act, 1956, through its Director Mr. Rajat Kumar Doda).

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Claim Department- SCO 156-159, 2^nd floor, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present: Smt. Nidhi Jain Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Rohit Gupta Advocate for OP.

                     

ORDER

 

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased the vehicle i.e. Audi A-8, Registered no.HR-34-H-0019 from Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd., 113/12, G.T. Road, Madhuban, Karnal. The complainant had purchased the insurance policy no.OG-17-9991-1801-00001156, effective from 4.5.2016 to 3.5.2017 from the OP through Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd. During the policy period, the alloy wheels of the aforesaid vehicle were damaged due to damaged and bad road. Accordingly, the claim was lodged on 17.11.2016, registered at no.OC-17-1201-1801-00002278. The surveyor was appointed by the OP but the OP had never intimated/supplied the copy of surveyor report. Rather on the basis of surveyor report, the OP informed the complainant that the alloy wheels of the vehicle in question be got repaired. The complainant only insisted that the alloy wheels be got repaired from authorized service centre only. The emails of complainant dated 23.11.2016 as well as 25.11.2016 written to the OP are hereby referred to. On this, the OP by  letter dated 28.12.2016, taken U-turn. If the contention of OP would have holds any substance, then the OP would not have suggested and approved the repair. The said letter dated 28.12.2016 is completely condemnable which shows the authoritative, unjustified and illegal conduct of the OP. By this letter, the OP has unilaterally, un-statutorily allowed only seven days without considering that the OP itself had taken long time in settling the claim. It is totally illegal and unsustainable to state that, ‘damage sustained to your vehicle are not correlating with cause of loss mentioned by your goodself in the claim form and also does not seems accidental in nature. This contention is completely illegal, against the facts and settled law and also unsustainable because the e-mail of complainant established the undisputed fact that admitting the damage to alloy wheels as accidental in nature, earlier the OP agreed to repair the same but the OP started disputing the same only because it was not agreeable by the OP to get the same repaired through authorized service station of the company. It is further alleged that the vehicle has been got repaired by the complainant with authorized service centre i.e. Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd. Karnal which was raised the invoice of Rs.3,14,026/- dated 24.12.2016. The OP failed to pay the claim of complainant, Hence the complainant through its counsel, got served a legal notice dated 9.1.2017 upon the OP but in vain. On receipt of legal notice, OP issued repudiation letter dated 16.01.2017 without assigning any good cause. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to  jurisdiction; cause of action; complicated questions of law and fact are involved which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle Audi A8 L 50 TDI Quattro Car bearing registration no.HR 34 H 0019 and had got insured the said alleged car with the OP, vide wheeler package policy bearing no.OG-17-9991-1801-00001156 for the period from 4.5.2016 to 3.5.2017. Thereafter, the insured/complainant had intimated a claim with the OP on 4.3.2016 submitted claim documents in support with the claim form on account of the abovesaid damaged vehicle and the same was registered as claim no.OC-17-9991-1801-00001156. The claim of the complainant was duly processed by the OP by way of appointment of an IRDA approved independent Surveyor, Amandeep Chugh (Surveyor and Loss Assessor), who had minutely conducted the survey of the insured vehicle and assessed the loss subject to terms and conditions of the policy and approval from the insurer and submitted Final Survey Report. It is further submitted that on scrutinizing documents submitted by the insured/complainant and observing the survey report of the surveyor, issued two letters dated 19.12.2016 and 28.12.2016 with the observations that damaged sustained to the insured vehicle are not correlating with cause of loss mentioned by the complainant in the claim form and also does not seems accidental in nature, and therefore, required clarifications from the end of the insured/complainant had been communicated to him. Thereafter, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 16.1.2017 as the complainant failed to submit any reply to the abovesaid letters and therefore in absence of any response and non-cooperation from the side of the complainant, the OP was unable to process the claim and did not have any other option except to repudiate the claim. Hence the claim of the complainant being not admissible is not maintainable. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on 8.11.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur Assistant Manager Legal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6  and closed the evidence on 14.6.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Without going into any other controversy, firstly it is to be seen that whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present complaint or not. In the present complaint after perusal of policy document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant in his evidence it is clear that the insured value of the vehicle in question was Rs.1,00,14,337/-. According to the provision of Section 11(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. It is pertinent to mention here that for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of subject matter is to be taken into consideration and not the relief claimed. The learned counsel for complainant argued that the amount claimed by the complainant is Rs.3,14,026/-, therefore, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complainant. As stated above the value of the subject matter in question is Rs.1,00,14,337/- which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover, we can rely upon the authority cited in 2016 (4) CLT-133 (NC) titled as Parikshit Parasher Versus Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Ors. wherein it is mentioned by the Hon’ble National Commission that the issues relating to the interpretation of section 12(1)( C) of the C.P. Act were referred by a two members bench of this Commission (National Commission), to a larger Bench for its decision. The larger bench of the Hon’ble National Commission has decided the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction in para no.14 and para no.15 of this authority which is as under:-

Para no.14

“Reference order dated 11.8.2016

Issue no.(i)

 It is evident from a bare perusal of section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hire or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lakhs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Similarly, if for instance a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crores, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing these defects is Rs.5.00 lakhs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore.” 

Para no.15 “For the reasons stated herein above, the references are answered as under:-

Reference dated 11.8.2015

Issue no.(i)

        It is the value of the goods or services as the case may be and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.”

Issue no.(ii)

        The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.

Issue no.(iii)

        The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the case may be, is to be considered alongwith the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum. 

                Keeping in view this authority even if the relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs even then for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction the total value of the subject matter is to be taken into consideration. The total value of the car in question which is the subject matter in question is Rs.1,00,14,337/- which is more than Rs.20 lakhs, therefore, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint.

7.             In view of the above discussions and without going into other merits of the case, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint, therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the court of the competent jurisdiction as per provision of law. However, in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Forum while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.07.2018                                         President

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

    (Anil Sharma)

                        Member