Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 513
Instituted on : 30.09.2019
Decided on : 26.04.2024.
Manish Prakash age 35 years, s/o Sh. Pawan Prakash Verma R/o 745, Sector-1, Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- IffcoTokio General Insurance Co.Ltd.4th and 5th floor IFFCO Tower Plot no. 3 Sector 29 GURUGRAM, Haryana-122001 through its Manager.
- Satyam Toyota Auto Serve Ltd., near Banger Cinema flyover, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.ManishVerma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.PuneetChahal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he got insured his car bearing registration no. HR12AB-7204 from OP no 1 i.e.IffcoTokio Gen. Insurance Co.by paying premium of Rs.15658/- vide policy no. M6823405 for the period 14.04.2019 to 13.04.2020. Said policy is zero dep and cashless policy. Opposite party no. 1 gave an offer to the complainant before issuance ofpolicy thatin case the complainant gets the said vehicle insured from OP no 1 at least 10 days in advance from the date of required insurance i.e. 14.04.2019 then a discount of Rs 1500/- would be given to the complainant. The complainant insured the said vehicle from opposite party no. 1 on dated 24.03.2019and availed a discount of Rs.1500/- for advance insurance. On dated 17.06.2019 the complainant gave his vehicle to opposite party no.2 for denting, repair etc. under insurance claim. At the time of delivery of aforesaid car opposite party No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- alleging that Rs.5000/- extra to be paid by customer/complainant for voluntary excess because the complainant had availed a discount of Rs.1500/- in the aforesaid policy. The bill of said work was Rs.55193/-. The insurance claim amount which is to be paid by opposite party no. 1 as per policy to opposite party no. 2 is Rs.45238/- but opposite party no. 1 paid only Rs.40893/- and wrongfully and illegally withheld Rs.5000/ on the false allegation of availment of discount. The complainant has requested and emailed to opposite party no. 1 to release the balance claim amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant but to no effect. The OP no 1 has now offered in the first week of August 2019 to pay 1770/- plus GST and only then this clause of voluntary excess would be removed from this policy. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 be directed to pay balance amount of Rs.5000/- with interest @ 10% p.aand also pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of the intimation on 17/06/2019 about the loss/damage of the Toyota Etios Car of the complainant, took place on 16/06/2019, the claim was duly entertained in due course and the respondent Insurance Company on its part appointed Mr. AmanBehal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for inspection of the damaged vehicle and assessment of loss. The appointed surveyor inspected the damaged vehicle and assessed the loss of Rs.40,238/- based on the repair bill submitted by the insured, less compulsory excess of Rs.1,000/- and Voluntary Excess of Rs.5000/- as per the Insurance policy No.M6823405 obtained by insured. Insured himself availed a discount of Rs.1500/- (same is indicate on the policy under the head Additional Loading-Less) under the provision of the Indian Motor Tariff for bearing voluntary excess of Rs.5,000/- for each and every claim under the insurance policy. Hence the amount of Rs.5,000/- deducted by the surveyor while arriving at net payable amount on the basis of Insurance Policy. The respondent Insurance Company has rightly and legally paid the full claim amount as per the assessment of surveyor and as per terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint is liable 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 cost. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.04.2022 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW4 and closed his evidence on dated 12.01.2023. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A, documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2and closed his evidence on 13.09.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the main contention of the complainant is that he suffered a damage in the vehicle in question and insurance company paid an amount of Rs.40893/- after deducting an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of voluntarily excess clause. In reply the insurance company has submitted that the policy bearing no.M6823405 was issued by the respondent officials. In this policy the complainant voluntarily opted for a ‘voluntarily excess clause’ of Rs.5000/- and obtained a discount amountRs.1500/- under the head (additional loading less) under the provision of Indian motor tariff. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The complainant has placed on record a copy of proposal form as Ex.CW1. The perusal of this document shows that the complainant has not expressed his desire to obtain ‘voluntarily excess clause’ in his proposal form. The respondent insurance company also failed to place on record any document to prove the fact that the complainant has gave his consent regarding the voluntarily excess clause for his insurance policy. As per MtorVehicle Act, the compulsory excess clause is mandatory and set by the insurer whereas regarding the ‘voluntarily excess clause’ the insurance company providesan option to insured to choose an additional excess amount by the insurance company. In the present case the complainant never choose ‘voluntarily excess clause’ or gave his consent regarding this clause. So the amount of Rs.5000/- has been wrongly deducted by the insurance company.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.09.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expensesto 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:
26.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
