Haryana

Ambala

CC/166/2019

Pawan Kumar Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz Gen Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 166 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   06.05.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :   16.01.2020.

Pawan Kumar Puri, age 65 years, son of Late Shri Manohar Lal Puri, R/o House No.47, Mathura Enclave, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., S.C.O.-91, First Floor, Prem Nagar, Above Karan Plaza, Opp. Arvind & Mandan Electronics, Ambala City-134003, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                         ..…..Opposite Party.        

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel  for the OP.  

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To refund remaining claim amount of Rs.11,847/- alongwith interest @ 16.66% w.e.f 05.06.2018 on account of defective LED.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased two LED TVs make “SONY” bearing Model No.40 R562C & 24P412C, Chassis No.4599148 & 7032846 of Rs.53,900/- & 15,900/- respectively, from Arvind Electricals, Prem Nagar, Ambala City vide invoice No.4640 dated 24.12.2015 and both the LED’s were financed through OP. The LED in question was got financed for a sum of Rs.52,000/- and remaining balance was paid by him. At the time of purchase of the above said LEDs, the representative of OP’s offered him that the proposal for extended warranty of the LEDs to be commenced after the expiry of one year warranty provided by the manufacturer. On the assurance and offer given by the representative of the party, the complainant accepted the scheme and accordingly Rs.4432/- were charged by the OP as premium for the purpose for the extended warranty for two years vide policy No:OG-16-1000-6609-00625554. After about two years, out of these two LEDs, the display of one LED was turned blank and the same stopped working. Thereafter, on the same day, he moved a complaint with the OP on 05.06.2018. At the time of making the said complaint, the OP assured him that the complaint will be resolved within in 24 to 48 hours. He requested many times to the OP that either they should repair or to provide some alternate LED till the product is finally repaired, so that he is not deprived of the required services. Finally, the claim was settled on 03.08.2018, for an amount of Rs.35,574/- as the product was declared as beyond repairs by the OP. Complainant felt the amount is less to the loss suffered by him, so, he asked the OP to provide detailed calculations of his claim/settlement. The OP provided the calculations vide e-mail dated 16.08.2018 (4:23 PM). In the said calculations, depreciation of 30% has been considered, in addition to other uncalled for service charges. On query, it was conveyed that depreciation has been computed from the date of purchase of the product and not from the date of extended warranty i.e. the date from where the actual extended warranty liability of OP begins. Since warranty charges (Rs.4432/-) have been charged by OP for two years for the product cost of Rs.52,000/-. Therefore depreciation is required to be calculated by considering the product cost of Rs.52,000/- as on 24.12.2016 i.e after the expiry of the Manufacturer’s warranty period and not the date of purchase of the LED. In fact the warranty charges of Rs.4432/- have been charged one year in advance, which otherwise should have been charged alongwith the 12^th months instalment i.e. at the time of commencement of the extended warranty period. He visited the office of OP many times but the OP did not pay any heed to the same. Complainant served upon a legal notice dated 14.08.2018, but of no avail. The OP intentionally and deliberately cheated the complainant by playing a big fraud with him and has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed written version and has raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that LED make–Sony was purchased by him on 24.12.2015, insured with the OP vide policy which was valid for the period from 24.12.2016 to 23.12.2018. The terms and conditions of extended warranty period are binding on both the parties and to be followed in letter & spirit. The report of surveyor showed that nothing was kept concealed by the OP which processed. As per letter dated 02.08.2018, claim payment was approved for Rs.35,574/- was made clear beyond doubt. As per claim payment approval from date on 02.08.2018, the OP is ready to settle the claim for Rs.35,574/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms and conditions of the policy & the complainant had accepted the same at the time of issuing the policy in question. There is no deficiency on its part and the complaint filed against it, may be dismissed with heavy costs.

3.                Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/A alongwith document as Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Shri Jai Singh, Sr. Executive Legal, Legal Officer Authorized Signatory #Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited as Annexure OP1/A alongwith document Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

5.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                The complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

7.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP reiterated the version as mentioned in their written version and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint

8.                Complainant has argued that he purchased two LED TVs make SONY from Arvind Electricals, Prem Nagar, Ambala City vide invoice dated 4640 dated 24.12.2015 with a warranty of one year and both the LEDs were financed through OP. He availed the offered of extended warranty for both the LEDs from OP for 2 years vide policy No.OG-16-1000-6609-00625554, from 24.12.2016 to 23.12.2018 for which he paid premium of Rs.4432/-. After two years display of one of the LED turned blank and stopped working. He moved a complaint to OP on 05.06.2018, On 03.08.2019, his claim was settled for an amount of Rs.35,574/- after depreciation of 30% as the product was declared as beyond repairs by the OP. Depreciation was to be charged from the expiry of manufacturer’s warranty period, but OP charged the depreciation form the date of purchase of the LED. He further argued that he was liable for a claim of Rs.47,420/- instead of Rs.35,574/- and balance claim of Rs.11847/- is still pending to be paid by the OP alongwith compensation  and litigation expenses.

                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued that LED purchased by the complainant was insured with OP for the period from 24.12.2016 to 23.12.2018. Vide letter dated 02.08.2018, claim payment was approved for Rs.35,574/-. As per terms and conditions of the policy it had rightly depreciated 30% on the product in question. On the Basis of Claim Settlement mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy, it is clearly mentioned that, in case of total loss, the company shall indemnify the Insured in respect of the restoration or replacement costs up to the sub-limit of the Sum Insured set against the Insured Asset in the Schedule, subject to a depreciation of 10% per annum from the date of purchase. As such they are not deficient in providing the service.     

9.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased two LED TVs from Arvind Electricals & Electronics, Prem Nagar, Ambala City with one year warranty/guarantee vide bill No.4640 dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure C-1). Vide policy Annexure C-2, complainant got extended the warranty period of the LEDs for two years for a sum insured of Rs.52,000/- from the OP. The plea of the complainant is that after about two years, out of these two LEDs, the display of one LED was turned blank and the same stopped working. On the same day, he moved a complaint with the OP. OP lodged the complaint of complainant and indemnified the complainant under total loss and settled the claim for Rs.35,574/-. Vide E-mail dated 28.08.2018, Annexure C-11, it is clear that OP settled the claim of the complainant after deducting 30% depreciation and visit charges of Rs.1180/-. Complainant has contended that the depreciation was wrongly charged as 30% from the date of purchase of product. To rebut this contention Ld. counsel for the OP has placed on record Extended Warranty Policy Document Annexure OP-6, in which it is clearly mentioned that in case of total loss, the company shall indemnify the Insured in respect of the restoration or replacement costs up to the sub-limit of the Sum Insured set against the Insured Asset in the Schedule, subject to a depreciation of 10% per annum from the date of purchase. In extended warranty policy document  Annexure OP-6, as per Exclusions at point No.26, “the company is not liable for service calls which do not involve malfunction or defects in workmanship or material”. Meaning, thereby the OP has rightly deducted the depreciation value and visit charges of Rs.1180/-. He requested many times to OP that either it should repair or to provide some alternate LED till the product is finally repaired, so that he is not deprived of the required services. Finally, the claim was settled on 03.08.2018 for an amount of Rs.35,574/- as the product was declared as beyond repairs by the OP. From the facts referred above, we reached to the conclusion that the OP had compensated the complainant adequately by giving an amount of Rs. 35,574/- on account of settlement of his claim. The contention of the complainant that the insurance company has not fully settled his claim is not tenable. Consequently, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint, being devoid of merits, with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 16.01.2020.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President