Delhi

East Delhi

CC/709/2015

ARUN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAS EMGINEERINGH - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  709/15

 

Shri Arun Prashar

R/o 73, Trilok Apartments

I.P. Extension, Patparganj

New Delhi – 110 092                                                               ….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

 

1. M/s. Bas Engineering Private Limited

Off.: A-2, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area

Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi, Delhi

 

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

401-402, Interface Building No. 11

Link Road, Malad (West)

Mumbai-400064                                                                             …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 15.09.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 11.01.2018

Judgement Passed on: 12.01.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Arun Prashar against M/s. Bas Engineering Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a car Insurance Policy from M/s. Bas Engineering Private Limited (OP-1) on 26.11.2014 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-.  It was submitted that old car insurance policy’s expiry date was 08.12.2014 and new car insurance policy was bought 2 weeks prior to its expiry.    Cheque was collected by Mr. Arun Chauhan, Marketing Agent of OP-1, from complainant’s residence on 20.11.2014 and hard copy of policy was sent by courier later. 

            The complainant requested OP to change of the wrongly framed insurance policy, bearing “ICICI Lombard” (as insurer) in place of “National Insurance Company”, which was mutually agreed, but OP-1 did not bother to hear the genuine causes of the complainant.  After repeated requests, it was told to the complainant telephonically  by one of the company’s employee about the Modus Operandi of “Bas Engineering” that OP-1 get huge commissions from “ICICI Lombard Car Insurance Company” and that was the reason that after getting advance money in the form of cheque, they sell “ICICI Lombard Policy”.  Hence, the complainant was forced upon by them to surrender the current policy and buy fresh insurance policy at higher rates and would get “Minimal Least Amount”.

            He was shocked to know that IDV of his car, which was                 Rs. 3,50,100/- in earlier policy (IFFCO TOKIYO) was lowered down to     Rs. 2,30,000/- in his offered policy.  Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.3,50,000/- – Rs.2,30,000/-) for permanently damaging the IDV of the car in the market, Rs. 30,000/- on account of communication, conveyance/transportation and litigation charges and      Rs. 40,000/- compensation on account of mental pain and agony alongiwthy18% interest from 26.11.2014. 

3. In the WS, filed on behalf of OP-1, they have taken various pleas such as the insurance policy was purchased in the name of the company, therefore, the complainant did not come under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the grievance of the complainant was only against the insurance company.  It was submitted that the complainant insisted to OP that he had a budget of Rs. 7,500/- only, according to which the insurance policy was given to him as per his requirement.  It was further submitted that IDV depends upon the insurance premium paid by the customer.  Other facts have also been denied. 

            In the reply, filed on behalf of OP-2, they have also taken various pleas such as the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the answering OP for the period from 09.12.2014 to 08.12.2015 vide policy no. ILG/10102705 subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  They have stated that insured declared value was the 1/3^rd of the previous insurance policy IDV as the premium paid by the complainant was Rs. 7,633/- i.e. 1/3^rd of the previous insurance premium.  It was also stated that as per the policy schedule of IRDA, after completion of five years of vehicle, the owner may get insured his vehicle for any amount what he wants, but not more than the last IDV which in the present case was Rs. 3,50,100/- and after five years the minimum depreciation was also not applicable.  They have denied other facts.      

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

            In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri J.S. Harit, Asstt. Manager (Legal) of OP-1, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited Board Resolution as Ex.RW1/A. 

            OP-2 have examined Shri Vikash Goyal, Manager (Legal) who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as true copy of policy certificate alongwith terms and conditions (Ex.OPW-2/A). 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for OPs and have perused the file as the complainant did not appear to argue.  The only point which have arisen in the present complaint has been that  vehicle of the complainant have been insured for the less amount.  The stand taken by the complainant has been that OPs have reduced the IDV on their own.  If both the policies are perused, it is noticed that the vehicle was insured with IFFCO TOKYO for the period 09.12.2013 to 08.12.2014 for the IDV Rs. 3,50,000/-, whereas it has been insured with ICICI Lombard for the subsequent year showing the IDV as Rs. 2,30,000/-. 

            The plea taken by the complainant that they have shown the IDV on their own cannot be accepted as the complainant have to declare the IDV on his own.  The insurance company or the dealer cannot get the vehicle insured on their own except with the consent of the insured.  Therefore, the plea taken by the complainant that OPs have declared IDV on their own cannot be accepted at all.  That being so, the complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves its dismissal and the same is demised.  There is no order as to cost.  

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                  President