DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.21 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 26.02.2013
DATE OF ORDER: -27.07.2016
Dr. J.B. Gupta deceased through his legal heir (a) Neelam Gupta widow of Dr. J.B. Gupta son of Shri Chandgi Ram, resident of Bhiwani at present resident of Dr. J.B. Gupta Hospital near Red Cross Bhawan, Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Raghu Hyundai, through its Proprietor Dr. Ishwar Gupta, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani-127021.
- TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. IInd Floor, white House, Opp. Narain Complex, Civil Road Rohtak-124001 (Haryana) through its authorized signatory.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Shri N.K. Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car, Make: Hyundai I-20 Sportz CRDI, bearing Engine No. DAFCBU976085 Chassis No. MALBB51RLBM 327072*G (Diesel) bearing registration No. HR-16-K-4545 vide sale certificate issued by OP no. 1 in favour of complainant on 22.07.2011. It is alleged that on the assurance of OP no. 1, the complainant insured the said car through OP no. 2 vide cover note dated 21.07.2011 covering the period from 21.07.2011 to 20.07.2012 and the special condition of 0% Dep. Has also been mentioned in the said cover note. It is alleged that unfortunately the said vehicle of complainant met with an accident in the month of May 2012 and some damages/losses caused to the complainant with OP no. 1 for rectification of defects. It is alleged that after rectification and repaired of the said car, the OP no. 1 has obtained a sum of Rs. 17,385/- from the complainant vide receipt 2040 dated 17.05.2012 without any sufficient reasons. It is alleged that he made several requests and contacted the officials of the Ops no. 1 & 2 to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 17385/- from the complainant towards the insured car of complainant but they defrayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that he served a legal notice to Ops no. 1 & 2 but no response was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that there was tie up between manufacturer of the car i.e. Hyundai India Ltd. and OP no. 2 with regard to cash less insurance policy of the products of Hyundai India Ltd. It is submitted that the repairs of the vehicle was carried out as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and assessment made by the surveyor of the OP no. 2. It is submitted that intimation with regard to the accident was given to the OP no. 2 and surveyor was deputed by the OP no. 2. It is submitted that OP no. 2 has changed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such deprecation was applied as per instructions of OP no. 2 and as such a sum of Rs. 17,385/- was charged from the complainant out of total billing amount of Rs. 28,017/- and the remaining amount was paid by the OP no. 2 to the answering respondent. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.05.2013.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-24 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that under the terms and conditions of insurance policy, which was cashless and zero depreciation, the OP cannot charge for the repairs of the accidental car of the complainant. The OP no. 1 charged a sum of Rs. 17,385/- from the complainant vide receipt no. 2040 dated 17.05.2012 without any justification and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This amount of repairs was payable by the insurance company/OP no. 2.
8. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the benefit of zero depreciation was applicable only for two times during one year period of the insurance policy. As the complainant has failed to zero depreciation benefit for two times, so the complainant was liable to pay the amount for the depreciation of the parts. A bill of Rs. 28,017/- was charged towards the repairs charges by the OP no. 1 out of which for the plastic parts etc. the 50 per cent depreciation comes to Rs. 17,385/-, which has been charged from the complainant under the terms and conditions of the policy.
9. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 17,385/- has been charged by OP no. 1 from the complainant against the repairs carried out by it for the car of the complainant. The counsel for the OP no. 1 could not bring any clause to our notice of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in support of his contention that after taking the benefit of zero per cent depreciation, for two times the complainant is entitled for zero per cent depreciation benefit in the present bill of repairs of Rs. 28,017/-. The OP no. 2 did not bother to appear and contest the claim of the complainant. As the OP no. 1 has failed to bring any cogent evidence in support of his contention, we hold that the OP no. 2 has illegally charges Rs. 17,385/- from the complainant which was payable by the OP no. 2. In view of these facts, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no. 1 to refund of Rs. 17,385/- to the complainant with interest @ 8 per cent from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The OP no. 1 is directed to send the awarded amount alongwith interest to the complainant vide draft through registered post. This order be complied with by the OP no. 1 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP no. 1 shall also be liable to pay Rs. 1500/- as compensation to the complainant. The OP no. 1 shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from OP no. 2 as per the provisions of law, if so advised. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.07.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
