Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/345/2017

Brijindra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh Banger

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/345/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	07/06/2018

 

Brijindra Singh s/o Sh. Ajmer Singh, aged 38 years, r/o House No.136, Sector 21A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Maruti Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through Principal Officer.

2.     National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middelton Street, Kolkatta-71 through C.M.D.

3.     Auto Pace Network Private Ltd., Plot No.174, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160102 Manager Bodyshop.

4.     Ms. Mamta Chaubey, Manager Insurance, Auto Pace Network Private Ltd., Second Flor, S.C.O 24, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

5.     Sh. Inderpal Singh, Surveyor, House No.135, Ph-1, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar).

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OP-1 ex-parte
	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Vice Counsel for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Counsel for OPs 3 & 4.
	:	OP-5 ex-parte

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant in the year 2017 got his vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01-M-5184 insured from OP-2 through OP-1 under cashless scheme. The insurance policy was operative from 31.01.2017 to 30.01.2018.  Maintained, on 14.2.2017 the vehicle in question met with an accident and on 16.2.2017 it was handed over for repairs to OP-3.  Commitment was made after repair delivery would be made on 17.2.2017 after paying the marginal payment under cashless scheme. Stated, on 18.2.2017 OP-3 made a call that OP-2 has denied to settle the claim due to mismatch in the year of manufacture in the registration certificate and in the record of OP-1 as model in RC was shown as 2012 while the actual year of manufacturing was 2011.  The complainant ran from pillar to post and was also put to inconvenience i.e. without use of car.  Time and again it was apprised complainant was nowhere at fault and emails were also exchanged. Even the complainant was threatened he will be charged Rs.200/- per day rent for parking. Maintained, on 10.3.2017, legal notice was sent and thereafter finally on 18.3.2017 after one month the vehicle was delivered and the car was repaired per insurance policy. Hence the present consumer complaint praying for Rs.30,000/- as damages; Rs.40,000/- for mental agony and Rs.25,000/- for legal expenses.
2.         Pursuant to the notice issued, initially S/Sh. Arun Kumar and Rohit Kaushik, Advocates appeared on behalf of OP-1 on two dates and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. However, on 31.10.2017, neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP-1 nor reply and evidence were filed. Accordingly, OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         OPs 3 & 4 contested the consumer complaint and filed joint reply. It is the case, there was mismatch and, therefore, the claim could not be processed promptly.  Despite repeated requests, complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle and unnecessarily blocked the commercial space of OP-3. Maintained OPs 3 & 4 cannot be held responsible.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         OP-2 also contested the consumer complaint and its line of defence is same. As per registration certificate the year of manufacture of insured car was 2012 while it was mentioned as 2011 in the insurance policy. As such, the claim was delayed.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.         OP-5 did not appear despite due service, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.6.2017
6.         Separate replications were filed and the averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
7.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsels for the contesting OPs and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
9.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted case, vehicle in question was insured with OP-2 and the policy is Annexure C-1.  Per pleadings of the parties, it is also the admitted case, after repairs, delivery of the vehicle was ready on 18.2.2017, but, the claim was not processed due to mismatch of year of manufacture. It is further undisputed fact, for one month i.e. from 18.2.2017 to 18.3.2017 vehicle remained with OP. Thus, inconvenience and harassment is writ large. It is also the admitted case, complainant had to run from pillar to post to get the insurance claim i.e. cost of repair of the vehicle in question. There is no doubt about these facts having regard to the natural course of events happens in day to day life.  The complainant had to remain without use of the vehicle and was put to great inconvenience.
10.         Not only this, time and again emails were sent and other efforts had to be made and thereafter OPs, of their own after one month, had indemnified the cost of the repair.
11.         It is a matter of common sense, at the time of obtaining the insurance policy, the insurer goes through the registration certificate. If in the insurance policy, year of manufacture mentioned as 2011 instead of 2012, same is not fault of the insured (complainant) and no negligence could be attributed to the complainant.
12.         We have a glance to the insurance policy (Annexure OP-2/A).  It mentions the name of the registered owner, model of the vehicle and the period of insurance coverage. If with some typographical mistake year of manufacture is mentioned as 2011 by the insurer itself, fault lies on the part of the insurer only and it should thank itself for such lapse rather than passing on the baby of lapses on the lap of the complainant.  It is a case where after payment of premium, a bonafide consumer has been put to unnecessary harassment and loss with own negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  We must say, OPs collectively had put the complainant to damage as well as mental and physical harassment and to run after them for a period of one month for mistake on their part.
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To immediately pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 18.2.2017 till realisation.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
07/06/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President