Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 269.
Instituted on : 13.06.2018
Decided on : 21.06.2022.
Sh. Gaurav Malik s/o Anil Malik R/o House No.1508, Sector-2, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune.
- Reliance Retail Limited, Digital Xpress Mini Huda Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rinku Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. As per the complaint, the complainant had purchased one aqua guard water purifier from Reliance Retail Limited vide invoice dated 07.11.2015. On 07.11.2016 complainant purchased a policy from the Reliance Retail Limited , which was issued by the respondent no.2 and two years insurance of aqua guard was covered and the value of aqua guard was assured Rs.18999/- vide policy no.OG-16-1000-6609-00539324 from the respondent no.1. On 06.10.2017 complainant moved a complaint for PCV and filter problem and also made so many complaints and thereafter they charged Rs.1200/- for filter and PCV was changed by respondent no.1. After two days the aqua guard was again got a fault on dated 11.03.2018 and same problem was again marked by the respondent no.1 and reference no.71857977 was issued and problem was never resolved by the respondent no.1. After waiting for one month, no response was ever received from the respondent no.1 and complainant again made a complaint on 16.04.2018. On 20.04.2018 Aqua guard was handed over to the respondent no.1 and same was picked from the house of complainant and again the same problem was reported by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 provided defective and poor quality product and respondent no.2 has not provided the assured amount of insurance claim. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of both the parties and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.18999/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause. .
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.08.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in their reply has submitted that complainant intimated the problem in the water purifier to the insurance company. The insurance company duly appointed the service engineer, who has duly repaired the equipment but the complainant is not ready to receive the equipment back and wants the complete sum insured, which is not possible as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy contemplates that if the repair cost of the asset is less than the sum assured then the amount for repair cost shall be given reimbursed to the inured after getting the proof that the repair cost has been incurred. It is wrong and denied that the answering respondent charged Rs.1200/- for filter problem and PCV was changed by respondent no.1. The answering respondent company is the insurance company. Hence the complaint of complainant is false and the same deserve to be dismissed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on 03.05.2019. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 08.11.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that as per invoice Ex.C5, complainant had purchased an Aquaguard for Rs.18999/- from the opposite party No.2 on dated 07.11.2015. As per Extended warranty Ex.C6, the product in question was insured w.e.f. 07.11.2016 to 07.11.2018 by respondent no.1 and a premium of Rs.1146/- was also received for the same by the opposite party No.1. Ex.C7 is the premium receipt. As per email Ex.C9 dated 03.05.2019, opposite party No.1 received the email dated 11.05.2018 from the complainant and as per email Ex.C8 dated 03.05.2019, opposite party replied that they have forwarded the request of complainant to the concerned department and requested the complainant to extent his co-operation so as to get the issue resolved to the satisfaction of complainant. But despite the alleged emails and legal notice Ex.C1 dated 10.05.2018, neither the issue was resolved nor the insured amount has been refunded to the complainant despite the fact that the product in question was under extended warranty issued by the respondent no.1. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. The product in question is already in the possession of respondent no.1.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of Aquaguard in question after deducting the 10% depreciation on it i.e. to refund Rs.17100/-(Rupees seventeen thousand and one hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.06.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.06.2022.
..................................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member.
