DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1278/2014
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. ISHWAR DAYAL GUPTA,
S/o SH. PRITHVI CHAND GUPTA,
R/o 387, KOHAT ENCLAVE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. BHARTI AXA GENE. INS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS M.D./G.M.,
2nd FLOOR, BIGJO’S TOWER, A-8,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.
2. RING ROAD HONDA,
BAS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS M.D./DIRECTORS,
A-2, UDYOG NAGAR INDL. AREA,
ROHTAK ROAD, DELHI-110041. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.10.2014
Date of decision:22.05.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is owner of Honda Jazz car bearing Registration no. DL-2C-AJ-5050 and the said car was insured by
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 1 of 6
OP-1 comprehensive insurance policy no. FPV/I0330762/12/08/ D11249 for the period from 02.08.2013 to 01.08.2014. On 10.04.2014 at about 8:00 A.M., the said vehicle was being driven by Ms. Shruti Gupta daughter of the complainant and the said vehicle met with an accident at G.T. Road near Mukarba Chowk when the said vehicle fell in a ditch while saving a cow which came in front of the vehicle and the said vehicle was taken out from the ditch by crane and the vehicle was extensively damaged. After taking out the vehicle the daughter of the complainant tried to start the vehicle but the car was not in starting position and the same was towed to the premises of the complainant and on the same day, the complainant called OP-2 who directed the complainant to drop the vehicle to the workshop and the complainant on the same towed the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2 and also informed OP-1 about the accident. The complainant further alleged that OP-1 appointed the surveyor and directly contacted OP-2 for getting the estimate and gave approval of the repairs and OP-2 assured the complainant that the vehicle will be repaired on cashless basis and the repair bill will be paid by the insurance company i.e. OP-1 and only depreciation amount will be payable by the complainant and after the repairs of the vehicle the complainant contacted OP-1 for delivery of the vehicle when he came to know that the total repair bill amounted to Rs.3,27,069/- and OP-1 has paid/approved a sum of Rs.43,185/- only and the complainant contacted OP-1 for clarification regarding
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 2 of 6
the details of the approval of the insurance claim amount of Rs.43,185/- but OP-1 refused to entertain the queries of the complainant. Thereafter, leaving no other way out, the complainant was forced to pay balance amount of Rs.2,84,964/- to OP-2 for taking the delivery of the said vehicle and OP-2 never communicated with the complainant and just communicated with OP-1 and passed the claim arbitrarily thereby reducing the claim and not paying the balance amount of the repair bill without any justification and failure on the part of OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which has resulted in financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying fordirection to OP-1 to refund/pay the balance amount of the repairs of the said vehicle of Rs.2,84,964/- as well as compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing damages for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. The complainant also sought Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and filed their separate reply. OP-1 in its reply submitted that the complainant has not filed the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as issued alongwith the policy. OP-1 further submitted that the surveyor had inspected the vehicle thoroughly and discussed with the repairers about the parts needing to be replaced and the paint work etc. to be carried out and the amount payable under the insurance policy was then
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 3 of 6
worked out by the surveyor who informed the same to OP-1 as also the repairers. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 had paid the amount of Rs.43,185/- to the repairersand there is no deficiency in service on its part.
4. OP-2 in its reply submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is wrong and illegal and there is no cause of action against OP-2.
5. The complainant filed separate rejoinders and denied the contentions of OPs.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of Registration Certificate, copy of Smart Motor Private Car Certificate of Insurance & Schedule Renewal policy for the period from 02.08.2013 to 01.08.2014 for the IDV of the vehicle of Rs.4,37,400/-, copy of cover note, copy of driving license of the daughter of the complainant, copy of Manual Service Repair Form dated 12.04.2014 issued by OP-2, copy of invoice no. SER-INV-DD002-1415-10095 dated 29.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.3,27,069/- issued by OP-2, copy of receipt no. S127565 dated 11.07.2014 of Rs.2,84,964/- paid by the complainant through credit card issued by OP-2 and copy of letter dated 30.06.2014 sent by OP-1 to the OP-2 about confirmation of final claim amount payable.
7. On the other hand,Ms. Shivali Sharma, Sr. Executive-Legal Claims
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 4 of 6
of OP-1 and Sh. J.S. Harit, Assistant Manager (Legal) of OP-2 filed their separate affidavitsin evidence which are on the basis of the written statement/reply. OP-1 also filed copy of Smart Drive-Private Car Insurance Policy-Policy Wordings and copy of Motor Final Survey Report. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record bythe complainant and OPs. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and there is no genuineness and merits in the defence of the OP-1. OP-1 has failed to disclose as to on what basis the surveyor has estimated the loss to the extent of Rs.43,185/- only. OP-2 is not disputed to be an authorized service dealer of the company. OP-1 has failed to prove the surveyor report. Thus, we are of opinion that there is no merits in the defence of OP-1 and OP-1 ought to have released the amount at the earliest to the complainant. Failure on the part of OP-1 to refund to the complainant the claim amount amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, we holdOP-1 guilty of deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,84,964/- being the balance amount towards the repair of the car which was paid by the complainant to OP-2.
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 5 of 6
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 22ndday of May, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1278/2014 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
