HON’BLE  MR. ASHIS KUMAR BASU,  MEMBER

Order No. 18  

Date : 09.03.2021

The record is put up for judgment.

1.The dispute in the present case arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereafter, the Act ) in relation to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for repudiation of insurance claim against the compensation for a damaged private car.

BRIEF FACTS

2.  Mrs. Arpita Bhattcherjee, w/o Mr. Arup Kumar Bhattacherjee, complainant in the instant case, residing at Street No.22, Quarter No. 213, Amladahi, P.S. Chittaranjan, Dist: Paschim Burdwan, PIN 713365 purchased a motor car on 30.07.2016 bearing Registration No. WB 38 AJ 3329, from Beekay Auto Pvt. Ltd. at N.H.-2 Chanda More, P.o. Kalipahari,  Asansol, Pin-713339, Opposite Party in this case being represented by Kaushik Bhattacharya, General Manager – Service.  In August 2017, the complainant went to the outlet of the Opposite Party at Chanda, P.S. Jamuria, Dist. Paschim Bardhaman with a view to renewal of insurance policy and met with the person- in-charge of the said outlet. The said person sent an authorized employee/person named Manoj Sharma  to the complainant’s home who  collected the necessary documents from the complainant for the said purpose.  The complainant had instructed Mr. M. Sharma for comprehensive  bumper to bumper insurance which the later agreed. Going through all the formalities, the complainant renewed the  insurance policy being no. 900108824   with SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. on 08.08.2017  through OP after paying necessary charges.

3. On 02.06.2018, the complainant visited the above mentioned outlet/ service station for schedule service of the said car and she was told that estimation of the service would be about Rs. 28000/- ( Rupees twenty eight thousand only ). The complainant asked the person concerned why the question of  estimation for service of the car arose as it was insured. The service person disclosed that the said renewed insurance policy would not cover everything as it was not a bumper to bumper coverage. The complainant enquired the matter to the service- manager and accused him that she had been cheated in this regard as she instructed to have a bumper to bumper policy at the time of  renewal. The Complainant stated that hearing the allegation the service person became very violent and took the documents of the policy in his custody.  The complainant alleged that he tried several times to contact with the OP to resolve the problem but the OP threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

4. The complainant also alleges that due to negligence and fraud practice on the part of the OP and his agents , she has suffered loss, deprivation, mental agony and harassment which tantamount to unfair trade practice for which she is entitled to have compensation under the Act.  The complainant prays before this Commission to a) admit the instant case b ) direct the OP to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees twenty lakh only ) as compensation  along with  Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh ) as costs.

KEY FINDINGS

5. If we relook into the matter, it is found that as per photo Copy of TAX/ VEHICLE & CHARGES INVOICE  dated 30.07.2016 files by the complainant, the purchase value of the car stands at Rs. 475194/- .The complainant also filed the photo copy of certificate  cum policy schedule ( covering period 09.08.2016 to 08.08.2017)  issued by SBI General Insurance  Company Limited  on 09.08.2016 where insured declared value was Rs. 427379/-  and  it is mentioned that “This policy is sourced and serviced by  Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited”.

 In the written version, the OP claims  that the complainant filed this complaint to have some unjust gain  as the said complaint is false and misleading. OP admits that apart from usual course of business, they provide insurance service  to their client by coordinating with various Insurance Companies. After purchasing the said car the complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing no. 900017864 paying the premium amount Rs. 13729/- from  SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. through the OP which  was expired on 08.08.2017.   The complainant renewed the policy on 08.08.2017 bearing no.9000108824 for the next year from the same insurer  through OP.  In the written version, OP also specifically disclosed that both the policies purchased by the complainant for the consecutive two years from SBI General Insurance  Companies Ltd were “ Zero Depreciation Policy” or Bumper to Bumper policy which would be proved from the terms and conditions of the policy. In this regard, OP filed a print out  of an  e-mail  confirming Zero Depreciation Policy, communicated by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.  In the written arguments, Complainant stated that she had visited the workshop for  schedule service on 02.06.2018 but OP claimed that she  actually visited  the same on 02.06.2019. On the other hand, Complainant alleged that OP illegally denied to accept the policy as zero depreciation policy. Complainant prayed for compensation amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- along with Rs. 100000/-  as cost.

6. We have heard the  Ld. Advocates for both the parties. Going through all pros and cons  of the case and materials on record, the first and the foremost  question to be determined in the instant case is whether this case is maintainable before this Commission.  Under section 17  (1) (a) (i) of the Act.’ the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain-  complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation , if any , claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakh but not exceed rupees one crore.  In the instant case, the total value of the car as per Tax invoice issued by OP on 30.07.2016 in the name of the complainant  stands at Rs.475194/-.  It is fact that the dispute cropped up when the complainant visited the work shop of OP on 02.06.2018 for schedule service of her car where the service man estimated the charge about Rs. 28000/- . As per allegation of complainant the service person told her that as she did not have the  bumper to bumper insurance  coverage  Hence she has to pay the said amount separately. The complainant could not produce any evidence like estimation or any other documents  in support of her allegation. From the statement of the complainant it is very clear that the said car under insurance cover did not suffer any major damage or accident, but in the written arguments she claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 100,000/- as cost totaling Rs.21,00,000/-. Surprisingly, the complainant claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation where the total invoice value  of the car  stands at Rs. 475194/- . The complainant did not explain why she claimed such a huge amount and how she quantified the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

7.The expression “ compensation “ is a comprehensive term which includes a claim for the damages. The claim for compensation should be fair and it should be based on reasonable grounds on the basis of evidence produced on record. By applying the well settled principles, the compensation should be adequate and fair. It is not extended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. The complainant can claim indemnification only to extent of actual loss suffered by her  and cannot be allowed to make capital out of  a minor damage of a car and that will amount  enrichment.The onus shall lie upon the complainant to quantify the loss or damages. In the instant case, the complainant utterly failed to quantify the loss/ damages and did not submit any work-out to quantify the compensation amounting to Rs. 20, 00,000/-. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission (N.C.D.R.C.) in the case of Padmini Malhotra Vs Era land Marks (India) Ltd.( 15 Dec.2015 ; Consumer Case No.  1269 of 2015), where the complainant paid Rs.20,61,990/- to a developer as consideration money with a view to purchase a flat. Ultimately  the complainant claimed Rs.1,17,16,000/-  as OP could not handover the possession of the allotted flat in time. The Hon’ble NCDRC observed that , “.. in view of  the section 21(a)(i) of  the instant complaint under the C.P.Act ’86, the instant complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission.The instant complainant has been filed with a clear attempt to inflat the value of the relief which amounts abuse to process of law being  an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of the consumer fora. Complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on same cause of action before the appropriate fora.”  

8.  In the instant case, as per CERTIFICATE  CUM  POLICY  SCHEDULE the total value (IDV ) of the car amounted to Rs. 475194/- and charge for the schedule service estimated at Rs. 28000/-as alleged by the complainant . Hence the total valuation of the complaint in  this case is far below twenty lakh which does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction this State Commission under section 17(1)(a)(i)  of C.P.Act’86.  In view of such facts and circumstances and on law point, it is fairly clear that the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Commission  with an  inflated claim  with a view to skip the trial in the forum below which is not tenable under the Act. 

9.  On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances, in our considered view , the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the case does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission under C.P Act’86, hence it is  dismissed accordingly.  

                                                                        ORDERED

 The instant complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

The complainant is at her liberty to file the complaint afresh in the appropriate forum below for the same cause of action.

We make no order as to cost.

Let the copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.