Delhi

New Delhi

CC/390/2018

Anuj Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.390/2018

 

Sh. Anuj Jain,

S/o Late Sh. S.C.Jain,

R/o B-310, Manav Apartments,

Plot No.3,  Sec.9, Rohini,

Delhi-110085.

                               ….Complainant

Vs.

 

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

8^th Floor, Zone IV, Kotak Infinity,

Building 21 Infinity IT Park,

Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi,

Malad (E), Mumbai-400097,

Maharashtra.

 

Also at :

H-78, 7^th Floor, Himalaya House,

K.G. Marg, New Delhi-01.

Opposite Party

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle Honda City car bearing registration No. DL 4C AU 1534.  The said vehicle was insured with OP in the category of private vehicle vide policy bearing No.PBW/2016102516161991 for the period from 30.10.2016 to 29.10.2017 and a sum of Rs.23,975/- was paid as a premium by the complainant.  On 22.10.2017, the said vehicle met with an accident and tyre of the vehicle got damaged alongwith scratch on wheel rim. The claim in this regard was lodged with OP vide claim No.10110009233 and the OP’s surveyor inspected the vehicle in question.  All the requisite documents were also submitted but OP vide email dt.2.11.2017 and letter dt. 24.11./2017 repudiated the claim of the complainant. On continuous follow-up   by the complainant, the representative of OP vide his email dt. 21.11.2017 accepted the present claim as “Special Case” and asked him to replace the tyre and to provide the bill thereof to the OP for reimbursement. Thereafter, complainant purchased the tyre for a sum of Rs.5,700/-  and replaced the same.  He further informed the OP about the replacement of tyre vide emails dt.7.4.2018 and 17.4.2018 and requested it to settle his claim.  But OP once again failed to consider the request of the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 26.7.2016 to the OP but OP neither reply to the legal notice nor had settled the claim of the complainant, hence this complaint.

2.     Notice was issued to the OP, Ld. Counsel, Sameer Kaushik, appeared on behalf of OP and collected the copy of the complaint.  The matter was adjourned to 15.2.2019.  On 15.2.2019 none appeared on behalf of OP despite repeated calls, therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 15.2.2019.

 

3.     Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

 

4.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission made on behalf of complainant. 

5.     Complainant has placed on record the copy of the Insurance policy, copy of the repudiation letter dt. 24.11.2016, copies of the email communications exchanged between the parties, copy of the invoice dt. 21.3.2018  in support of his case.

 

6.     From the un-rebutted testimony of the complaint and documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. 

 

7.     The OP Insurance Co. vide email dt. 21.11.2017 assured the complainant that his case is treated as special case and further OP advised him to replace the tyre in question and submitted the bill to it for claim processing, the contents of which are reproduced as under: 

 

MUKESH MENDIRATTATo Anuj Jain 

“After your representation, Co. had reviewed the case and decided to consider your claim as Special Case, you can get tyre replaced and provide the bills for further processing of your claim”.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Mukesh Mehndiratta

 

8.     Bare perusal of the email dt. 2.11.2017 placed on record by the complainant proves that the OP vide the above email asked the complainant to replace the tyre in question and further gave the assurance to process the claim of the complainant. 

 

9.     Non-settling of claim of the complainant by OP despite commitment amounts to deficiency in services.

 

10.    We, therefore, hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

i).  Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,700/- along with interest @  9% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e.  1.10.2018  till payment.

ii)   Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2500/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain which will also include the cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 01/10/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                                        MEMBER                                                         MEMBER