CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.591/2013
NARENDRA KUMAR ASTHANA
S/O LATE SHRI RADHA NATH ASTHANA
R/O OF 430 (TYPE-IV), LAXMI BAI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110023. …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR (PRESIDENT MOTOR
-
NEW DELHI -110019 ……...RESPONDENTNo.1/ OP
- THE SALES HEAD, M/s BHASIN MOTORS,
SOUTH EXTENSION-I,
NEW DELHI.. …..RESPONDENTNo.2/ OP
Date of Institution-14/11/2013
Date of Order- 13/05/2022
O R D E R
RASHMI BANSAL– Member
The present complaint is filed by the complaint for claiming refund of the alleged excess amount paid by the complainant to OP1 and OP2 for insurance of his car.
The facts of the case are that the complaint had purchased a car, Volkswagen Ventotli Hi Line from OP2, the car dealer, and was asked by OP2 for fulfilling the requirement of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for insuring the newly purchased vehicle, which is mandatory before delivery of the car to the purchaser. The insurance was arranged by OP2 through OP1, the insurance company for a period from 17.05.2012 to 16.052013. The grievance of complainant is that he has been paid Rs. 34,103/- to OP2 towards insurance policy given by OP1. He alleges that final premium for the insurance policy taken by him was Rs.20,550/- which is reflecting from the cover note / certificate cum insurance policy schedule and OP2 has charged excess amount of Rs. 34,103/- i.e. he has been charged Rs. 13,553/- in excess by OP2. Complaint has asked to OP2 for the refund of excess amount of Rs. 13,553/- verbally and through mail dated 16.06.2012, 08.10.2012 but to no avail. This is further submitted by complainant that despite repeated reminder and request for refund of excess amount of Rs. 13,553, the same is not refunded till date. A legal notice dated 19th October 2013 has also been sent to OP1 and OP2 which was not replied by them.
The complainant alleging that the conduct of both the OPs shown that they are not inclined to refund the excess amount charged and they are guilty of misconduct of charging excess amount over and above the authorised amount of insurance premium which amount to unethical practice on the part of OPs and causing deficiency in service leading to loss of funds financial harassment and mental agony to the complaint and praying for the direction to OP2 issued to refund the excess amount charged Rs. 13,553 along with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. from the date it has been charged up to the date of refund along with Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for harassment and additional Rs. 1,00,000 for mental agony cost of litigation and any other further relief from this Commission. The complaining has filed his evidence by way of an affidavit and marked all the documents as follows:
Complainant has filed following document,
- Cover note / Certificate and insurance policy schedule exhibited as Annexure I
- Mails dated 16.06.2012, 08.10.2012 – annexure 2,3 and 4
- Legal notice dated 19.10.2013, annexure 5
- Receipt is exhibited as Annexure 6
During the course of proceedings, the opportunity to file reply by OP1 was forfeited, however,
OP2 has filed his reply and evidence and admitted that a sum of Rs.34,103/- paid in favour of OP1 by complainant and OP1 has issued covered note dated 17th May 2012, thereafter the policy for insurance of vehicle was issued by OP1. OP2 stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 with regard to be OP1 of the said vehicle with respect to the Insurance policy and that he has been impleaded in the matter wrongly. This is been mentioned by OP2 that complainant had already filed another complaint on the same cause of action between the same parties before another district consumer commission and hence the present company complaint is not maintainable in view of double Jeopardy, however, strangely, OP2 has not filed any document in support of his case.
The perusal of the record shows that the receipt, annexure 4, shows that an amount of Rs. 34,103 have been paid towards insurance and insurance policy issued by OP1 as an annexure 1 shows the amount of Rs. 20,550 received towards insurance of the premium utilization statement. The other documents annexure 2, annexure 3 and annexure 4 are the correspondences showing that the complainant continuously been asking for the refund of the excess amount of Rs.13,533 that has been paid to OP2.
After considering the documents available on record and hearing the parties this Commission is of considerate view that charging the excess amount of Rs. 13,533 from complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and non refunding of the same despite asking for the same by the complainant amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP2 and complainant is entitled for the refund of the said amount along with other relief.
Therefore, OP2 is directed to refund the excess amount charged i.e. Rs. 13,553 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within 3 months of the passing of this order. The OP2 is further directed to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation towards the mental agony and harassment that is cause to complainant due to deficiency in services and Rs. 5000 as litigation cost within 3 months from the date of passing of this order failing with the entire amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the actual realization of amount to complainant.
The file be consigned to the record room after providing copy of the order to the parties free of cost.
The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
The order be uploaded on the website www.confonet.nic.in
The order contains ..5 pages and bears my signature on each page.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
