Delhi

North

CC/196/2021

ABDUL MATEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. OM TVS - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. CC/196/2021

In the matter of

1. Abdul Mateen

S/o Shri Abdul Malik

R/o H.No.1367, Gali Madarsa

Shah Abdul Aziz, Kalan Mahal

Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002                            ..........Complainant

Vs

1. M/s.Om TVS

8, Netaji Subhash Marg

Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002                     ........Opposite party

 

2. S.D.Motors

1/486, Main G.T.Road

Dilshad Garden

Delhi-110095                                              ........Opposite party

 

3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

502, 5^th floor

Mahatta Tower

54, B-1 Block, Janakpuri

New Delhi-110058                                       ........Opposite party

ORDER
23/01/2023

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been filed by Mr. Abdul Mateen, the complainant against M/s Om TVS, authorised dealer as OP-1, S.D. Motors, the service centre as OP-2 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurance Company as OP-3 with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 18/04/2019, the complainant purchase a TVS Scooty for Rs.60,532/- bearing Reg.No.DL3S-EG-3169 from OP-1. On 04/09/2021, the complainant met with an accident and handed over the scooty to OP-2 on 06/09/2021 for repair. He was informed by OP-2 that after a deduction of 15% to 20% , his claim would be settled by OP-3 within 15 days. 

  It has been stated by the complainant after two weeks, one Mr.Sachin, Claim manager of OP-2 informed the complainant that the scooty was ready after repairs and raised a bill of Rs.10,000/-.  As the complainant was unable to pay the bill, he sought some time from OP-2 to clear the dues but was threatened that Rs.100/- per day will be charged for parking.  On 24/10/2021, the nephew of the complainant, Mr. Mubashir Khan visited OP-2, where he was shocked to see that all the parts of the scooty were old thus, he left the scooty with OP-2. 

  On 25/10/2021, around 9.30 am the complainant was again threatened by one, Mr. Narender, to pick his scooty else his claim of Rs.10,300/- would be cancelled.   On 26/10/2021, an amount of Rs.3,301/- was transferred to the account of the complainant by OP-3, whereas the vehicle (scooty) was covered under “zero dep” insurance.  It has been alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that the bill of Rs.10,300/- was paid in cash, OP-2 and OP-3 failed to share the list, based on which OP-3 had passed the claim.  Feeling aggrieved by the acts of OP-2 and OP-3 the complainant has prayed for directions to :

1. OP-2 to replace the old parts from his scooty with new parts for which the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.10,300/-.
2. OP-2 to refund an amount of Rs.10,300/-to the complainant as the complainant has given the said amount to the OP-2.
3. OP-3 to give the full claim amount of Rs.10,300/- as the insurance of the said scooty  was “zero dep”.
4. Direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards physical and mental agony and,
5. Pass any other further order/s which Forum may deem fit and proper.

The complainant has annexed the tax invoice dated 18/04/2019, policy document, service spares invoice for Rs.10227/-, email dated 30/11/2021 with the complaint.

  Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1, OP-2 & OP-3.   However, none appeared on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte on 17/05/2022.

Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-3. They have taken several objections in their defence such as; the claim of the complainant had already been settled on 26/10/2021 for Rs.3,301/- as full and final; the complainant had not produced any documents or bill of repair; detail examination and cross examination was required for adjudication.  It was admitted that scooty bearing NoDL-3S-EG-3169 was insured vide policy bearing No.2312204113920800000  valid from 12/04/2021 to 11/04/2022 with IDV of Rs.53,202/- with an excess clause of compulsory deductable of Rs.100/-. It was submitted that a surveyor was appointed, who assessed the claim payable of Rs.3,301/- which was paid to the complainant on 26/10/2021.  It was further submitted that OP-3 had written letter dated 13/09/2021, 05/10/2021 and 20/10/2021 requesting the complainant to submit the repair bill and to get the vehicle inspected. They have further submitted that the loss to the vehicle was duly assessed by the surveyor as per repair and bill prepared by OP-2. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

Rejoinder was filed by the complainant to the written statement of OP-3 where the contents of the complaint have been repeated and those of the written statement have been denied. He has submitted that the claim was based on genuine bill prepared by OP-2, thus OP-3 had acted in illegal and unlawful manner by passing a claim of Rs.3,301/- instead of Rs.10,300/-.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant where he has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint.  He has got exhibited the copy of the invoice of scooty as Ex.-CW1/1, copy of insurance policy as Ex.-CW1/2 and copy of bill of repair as Ex.-CW1/3. 

        OP-3 have got examined Sh. Aviraaj Singh, Assistant Manager Legal.  It has been stated that the complainant has not given any basis for his claim of Rs.10,300/- and as per the assessment of the surveyor only front fender centre  and left hand bottom panel  were allowed.  They have got the copy of the policy exhibited as Ex-RW-1/1 and copies of letter dated 13/09/2021, 05/10/2021 and 20/10/2021 as Ex-RW1/2 to Ex.RW1/4.

We have heard the submission made by the complainant who is appearing in person and Ld. Counsel for OP-3. We have also perused the material placed on record.  The existence of insurance policy is not in dispute.  The complainant is aggrieved by the deficient payment of the claim by OP-3.  It is important to see Ex.CW1/3, the service spares invoice dated 25/10/2021 for Rs.10,227/-  and the claim summary report filed by OP-3. 

  As per “claim summary report” the survey was done on 09/09/2021 and the total invoice amount as per garage/workshop invoice is Rs. 2742.98 excluding taxes:-

Claim computation-two wheeler package policy

Particular	Description	Amount
Total invoice amount	Amount as per the garage/workshop invoice	2,742.98
Total surveyor Approval (A)	Copy of repair and /or replacement of the parts lost/damaged approved by surveyor	2,742.98
Total tax amount	Tax amount as per tax rates as applicable	658.00
	Total (A+B)= C	3,401.01

 

This amount was approved by the surveyor which was ultimately transferred to the account of the complainant on 26/10/2021. 

  If a look is made at Ex.CW1/3, the service spares invoice issued by OP-2 which is for Rs.10,227/- including taxes. Thus it is clear that OP-2 has raised two different invoices, one for OP-3 for an amount of Rs.3401.01 (Rs.2742.98 plus taxes Rs. 658.03) and the second one for the complainant for Rs.10,227/- dated 25/10/2021  (Ex.CW1/3). This definitely amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2.  As far as allegation of the complainant regarding use of old parts by OP-2 in repair is concerned, nothing has been placed on record by the complainant in support.

  To determine whether any liability for deficiency in services can be fastened on OP-3, we have to see their written statement, they have stated that the claim had been settled as per the bill prepared by OP-2, therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,301/- was transferred to the account of complainant. The complainant has alleged that OP-2 and OP-3 did not share the list based on which they had settled the claim but the complainant has placed nothing on record to substantiate his allegations.  Since OP-3 have settled the claim as per bill issued by OP-2 no deficiency in services can be attributed on part of OP-3.

  The failure on the part of OP-2, in sharing the invoice for repair dated 25/10/2021 of Rs. 10,227/- with OP-3 has led to mental agony and harassment of the complainant, whose actual claim could not be processed by OP-3. 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct following:

1. OP-2 to refund an amount of Rs.6,999/-(Rs. 10,300 minus Rs.3,301/-) charged in excess to the complainant.
2. OP-2 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, else the compensation awarded shall carry an interest @9% p. a. from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                  Member	(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member
(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar) President