Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 459.
Instituted on : 19.09.2018.
Decided on : 27.11.2019.
Tarun Nandal age 32 years, s/o Sh.Jai Singh Nandal R/o H.No.463/29, Tilak Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- LG Shoppee Electronic Point Near Railway Crossing, Bajrang Bhawan, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Near Badhwar Enfield Motors, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Harsh Bhargava, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Puneet Chahal Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Home Theater OM4560 and LG-SA-W/M 1062R35A vide invoice no.B-BHAWAN/153 for a sum of Rs.30500/- from the opposite party No.1. Opposite party suggested the complainant to get extend the warranty of the Home Theatre for 2 years under Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The cost of Home Theatre is Rs.14000/- The respondent has charged an amount of Rs.2915/- as premium from the complainant but after receiving the policy, complainant came to know that the respondent has entered wrong product name and has shown wrong value of the insured item as Rs.30500/- whereas the insured home theatre’s cost was Rs.14000/- only. That the respondent has illegally charged excess premium from the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party to correct his policy and refund the excess amount charged from him, but the respondent did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 20.08.2019 to the respondent but to no effect. The act of opposite party is illegal amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue the extended warranty policy certificate by correctly showing the product name and its costs and refund the excess amount of premium charged from the complainant and also to pay compensation on account of harassment 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.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.03.2019 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 & 3 appeared but failed to file reply despite availing ample opportunities.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.09.2019.
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 grievance of the complainant is that respondents have wrongly charged Rs.2915/- on account of extended warranty policy schedule w.e.f. 28.06.2019 to 27.06.2021 because the complainant had purchased two products from the respondent no.1 i.e. one Home Theater OM4560 having warranty of one year for Rs.14000/- and one LG washing machine No.1062R3SA having warranty of two years for Rs.16500/-. Meaning thereby the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.30500/- to the respondent no.1. These products have been purchased on dated 28.06.2018 and the complainant had purchased an extended warranty for 2 years of the product home theatre i.e. from 28.06.2019 to 27.06.2021. It is pertinent to mention here that both the products have been financed by Bajaj Fin Service Ltd. i.e. the sister concern of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Meaning thereby Bajaj Finance Ltd. purchased an extended warranty regarding the product which was hypothecated with him. At the time of arguments, the complainant counsel has placed on record two ‘No dues certificates’ i.e. JNC/1 , JNC/2 which shows that the complainant had repaid the whole finance amount to the Bajaj Finance Ltd. As per JNC/1, the washing machine was financed on dated 06.11.2018 and as per this document, the whole loan amount had already been paid by the complainant and no dues certificate has been issued by the Finance company regarding the washing machine and another document i.e. JNC/2 is also pertains to LG home theatre and as per this document, the whole loan amount had already been paid by the complainant and no dues certificate has been issued by the Finance company regarding the home theatre. This loan agreement was came into force on 30.06.2018 . As per this certificate, complainant had already paid all the dues.
6. Now the main contention of the complainant is that in the extended warranty policy, the sum insured has been shown as Rs.30500/- whereas as per Ex.C1, the cost of home theatre is mentioned as Rs.10937.50. Meaning thereby, the insurance company has wrongly charged premium amounting to Rs.2915/- after considering the cost of the product as Rs.30500/- because the finance company has wrongly supplied the cost of product to the insurance company as Rs.30500/-. The bare perusal of the document Ex.C2 itself shows that the model of the product is also wrongly mentioned in the extended warranty policy schedule as model-49938 whereas, as per Ex.C1, the tax invoice issued by LG Shoppee Electronic Point, the description of the goods is LH Home theatre OM4560. Meaning thereby the model is also wrongly mentioned by opposite party No.2 & 3. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2& 3 and they are liable to refund the 50% amount of premium to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.2 & 3 shall refund the 50% amount of premium i.e. Rs.1458/-(Rupees One thousand four hundred and fifty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.09.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three 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.
8. 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:
27.112019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
