Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/175/2022

ASHUTOSH KAUSHIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RAMESHWAR ELECTRONICS PALACE - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.175/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ashutosh Kaushik R/o H.No. 117, Bank Street, Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi-110042	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s Rameshwar Electronics Palace H 3/233-234, 1st& 2nd Floor, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-110085   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerwala, Pune 411006	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

03.08.18 19.02.24 23.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased LG LED TV from Opposite Party No.1 vide model no. 321LB550 for a sum of Rs. 21,800/- against invoice no. RAM JI-1885 dated 09.10.14. The Complainant stated that at the same time Opposite Party No.1 also booked extended warranty of said TV from Opposite Party No.2 with payment of            Rs. 1,774/- vide certificate no.OG 15 1000 6609 0014 2344 for a period of 2 years w.e.f 09.10.16 to 08.10.18. The Complainant stated that in month of July 2018, the screen of said TV got faulty and Complainant booked complaint with Opposite Party No.2 and one pick up boy picked said TV for repairing against claim reference no. OC 19 1101 6609 00007743 dated 17.07.18 and agree to return the said TV within one week. Thereafter, Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 after one week for delivery of said TV but Opposite Party gave false assurance of 10 days. The said TV was lying faulty with Opposite Party No.2 from 17.07.18 and warranty of said TV expired on 08.10.18. The Complainant stated that he had approached Opposite Party No.2 many times telephonically and requested to rectify the problem in said TV, the Opposite Party No.2 ignored the request of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the cost of TV in question i.e. Rs. 21,800/- with interest from the date of purchase of TV and Rs. 1,774/- as extended warranty charges. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 1,100/- towards litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 14.11.18. As per order dated 29.07.19, the Opposite Party No.2 filed its written statement and the same was taken on record as its Ex-parte order was set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

Case of Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed its written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 had issued policy no. OG 15 1000 6609 00142344 along with the TV set purchased by the Complainant.
4. The Complainant bought an extended warranty for the TV from Opposite Party No.2 on 09.10.14 after the additional payment of gross premium of INR 1,774/- for a period of two years i.e. 09.10.16 to 08.10.18 with policy no. OG 15 1000 6609 00142344.
5. The Complainant raised a claim on 18.07.18 with claim no. OC 19 1101 6609 00007743 and an engineer assessed the claim on 19.07.18. The Opposite Party No.2 also filed claim summary cum claim form cum satisfaction voucher.
6. The Opposite Party No.2 also filed the details of prior claim paid to the Complainant as below:

1. Customer’s 1^st claim no.  OC 18 1101 6609 00002121 registered on 11.05.17 for panel, issue was raised and the panel was repaired. The amount of the claim was INR 4,863/-.
2. Customer’s 2^nd claim no. OC 18 1101 6609 00007545 registered on 21.08.17 for the same issue was raised and it was found that there were issues in the panel. The total estimate was for an amount of INR 14,866 but as the issue was previously repaired for the same issue i.e. the panel, Opposite Party No.2 have deducted the last claim amount and approved an amount of INR 10,888/-. { 14,866-4,863+885(visit charges)} the sum insured for the insured asses of TV in the policy was for INR 21,800/-

After deducting the amounts paid for the last two claims the balance amount of sum insured outstanding was INR 9,006.

3. Complainants 3^rd claim no. OC 19 1101 6609 00007743 registered on 18.07.18 where the defect found in TV was V line in panel and sum insured was less so the Opposite Party No.2 offered for settlement on the basis of total loss.

7. A letter was sent to the Complainant on 14.08.18 titled “Reported claim toward asses insured under policy no. OG 15 1000 6609 00142344 asset type LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.”, which clearly mentioned that the sum insured of the policy opted by the Complainant for the insured asset is INR 21,800/-. Therefore, after deductions the Complainant’s balance sum insured before registration of subject claim was INR 9,006/-. Hence, as per the terms and conditions of the policy the liability of the Opposite Party No.2 after deduction of the compulsory deductible/depreciation, as on date, shall be restricted to INR 4,518/-.
8. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 as per the extended warranty policy document clause “Coverage” is as below:

“The company will indemnify the insured against the repair or replacement costs in respect of the insured asset caused by a breakdown arising out of manufacturing defects and/or due to poor workmanship of the service personnel of the authorised workshops during the policy period, provided that the liability of the company in respect of any one insured asset in any one policy period will not individually or in the aggregate exceed the sum insured set against such item in the schedule”.

9. The relevant provisions of the terms and conditions of the extended warranty policy document have been mentioned herein below: “Definitions :

The following words or terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them wherever they appear in this policy, and references to the singular or to the masculine shall include references to the plural and to the female wherever the context so permits:

7.Sum insured means the amount stated in the schedule, which is ( save as expressly stated o the contrary) the maximum amount (regardless of the number of amount of claims made or the number of the insureds who make a claim) for any one claim and in the aggregate for all claims for which the company will make payment in relation to the insured asset to which the sum insured relates during the policy period.

 

 

Basis of claim settlement

The sum insured in respect of each insured asset must equal the original purchase price of the insured asset. In the event of a loss, the basis of loss settlement shall be as follows.

1. Where an insured asset can reasonable be repaired or reinstated at a cost less than the replacement cost, the company will indemnify the insured in respect of the expenses necessarily incurred to restore the insured asset to its state immediately prior to the happening of the insured event. No depreciation shall be deducted except for parts with limited life.

10. In the case of a 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 manufacture.
11. The Complainant is claiming for an indemnification of loss occasioned by himself. While enumerating the facts in the present matter, it is understood that the Complainant has withheld important information such as the difference between the actual damage     suffered and the amount claimed by the Complainant. The Complainant has not mentioned anything about his previous repairs in his plaint thus concealing material information and non-disclosure of material facts and is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Forum by not disclosing the whole facts.
12. That being the Opposite Party No.2, we would like to state that as an insurance company, we assist our customers in every possible manner to enable tojustified claim. However, in the current factual matrix, we would like to state that after a thorough inspection of the claim, a closure letter dated 13.08.18 was provided by us and it has been found that the claim is as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus the just and equitable compensation of INR 4,518/- is being offered as compensation.
13. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the liability of Opposite Party No.2 after deduction of the compulsory deductible/depreciation will be restricted to INR 4518/-. This amount is due to the fact that the Complainant has already taken claim prior to this event and has not come with clean hands to the court and has deliberately concealed this fact in the Complainants plaint. Ergo, this evinces the Complainants mala fide intention of extorting money from the Opposite Party No.2.
14. In accordance with the policy claim, any amount claimed in excess would be absolutely unreasonable for us to pay. In interest of timely payment and considering the losses incurred by the Complainant, we request this Hon’ble Forum, to kindly observe that we are offering a fair compensation of INR 4518/-.
15. Opposite Party denied that the LED TV is with the repairman/engineer of the Opposite Party No.2 from 17.07.18. It is imperative to bring it before the Forum that the repairman called the Complainant to deliver the insured asset back at his residence which was denied and the Complainant refused to take delivery of the insured asset.

Evidence of the Complainant

16. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

17. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Shyama Vats, Legal Manager with Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

18. We have heard the Complainant andLd. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.We have also perused the file.The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased LED TV from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 21,800/- on 09.10.14. The said TV was insured by Opposite Party No.2 for a period of 2 years and same was extended from Opposite Party No.2 for a period of 09.10.16 to 08.10.18. There was a problem in the said TV in the month of July 2018 and Complainant booked the complaint with Opposite Party No.2 and same was picked up by the representative of Opposite Party for repair on 17.07.18 with assurance that  said TV will be returned to the Complainant within one week after the repair. The said TV was not returned to the Complainant after repair. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
19. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that the said TV was insured by them for a period of 2 years from 09.10.14 to 08.10.16 which was further extended for two years i.e. from 09.10.16 to 08.10.18. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that they have picked up the said TV on 18.07.18 for repair. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that the said TV was repaired by them on two occasions. The cost of repair for Rs. 4,863/- and Rs. 10,888/- respectively and after deducting the amount paid for the last 2 claims the balance amount of sum insured outstanding was Rs. 9,006/-. Since Complainant third claim which was registered on 18.07.18, where the defect found in TV and sum insured was less so the Opposite Party No.2 offered for settlement on the basis of total loss. A letter was sent to the Complainant by Opposite Party NO.2 by informing him that the said TV was insured for Rs. 21,800/-and after deduction of the Complainant’s balance sum insured before registration of the said claim was Rs. 9,006/-, hence as per terms and conditions of the policy the liability of Opposite Party No.2 after deduction of compulsory deductable/ depreciation as on date shall be restricted to Rs. 4,518/-
20. As per terms and conditions of the policy, basis of claim settlement in the case of a total loss, the company will 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 manufacture.
21. According to the above mentioned condition in the 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 manufacture which comes out to be Rs. 14,303/-
22. In view of the above the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 14,303/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
23. Order announced on 23.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)