Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/122

Pammi Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

10 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :               122  of 2020

Date of Institution:      17.08.2020

Date of Decision :       10.05.2022

 

Pammi Arora aged about 56 years, w/o  Mangat Arora, r/o Opposite Jain School, Near Baba Farid, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. New India Assurance, Baba Farid Market, Opposite Kotwali, Faridkot through its Incharge.
2. New India Assurance, The Mall Godam Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.
3. Rohan Motors, Mall Road, Opposite Raj Mahal Gate, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its proprietor.
4. Ajanta Mfg. Pvt Ltd., Oreva House, 2^nd Floor, Thaltej Cross Road, S G Highway, Ahmedabad-380054, Gujrat through its MD.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35  of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

cc  no. 122 of 2020

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

                    OP-3 and OP-4  Exparte.

 (ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs seeking directions to them to insure her vehicle Make Oreva, Model DLX after receiving premium from complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment, inconvenience, mental agony alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased an E-scooter make Oreva from OP-3 by making cash payment of Rs.39,900/-on 26.10.2019. E-scooter is manufactured by OP-4 and at the time of purchase, OP-3 assured complainant that for driving the said scooter no registration is required and complainant can get the same insured at

cc  no. 122 of 2020

any time. And after two days of purchase, complainant approached OP-3 for getting done the insurance, but OP-3 referred him to OP-1, who returned the complainant saying he would consult its high officials before insuring the vehicle. Since then, complainant has approached OPs several times, but all have been putting him off on one pretext or the other. Further submitted that all vehicles of her family have been insured from OP-1 and 2 and due to this reason, complainant wants to get insured her vehicle from OP-1 and 2 only. Complainant has made several requests to OPs to insure her vehicle and is ready to pay premium for same, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides the main relief.  Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                                   The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.10.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

 

cc  no. 122 of 2020

4                                                         On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there is no privy of contract between complainant and answering OPs and thus, complainant is not their consumer. Moreover, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between them and even complainant never approached answering OPs. Ops never provided any services nor agreed to provide any services to complainant. No cause of action arises against them and therefore, it is not maintainable against them. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 and OP-2. Further averred that present complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence which is not permissible in the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds only to extract public fund from them. However, on merits OP-1 and OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant and asserted that complainant is not their consumer as they have not received any premium or  amount from complainant in this regard and there is no such relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and OP-1 and OP-2. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency

  cc  no. 122 of 2020

in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                        Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3 through Peon and as per office report, notice issued to OP-3 was duly served, but on date fixed OP-3 did not appear in this Commission either in person or through counsel despite several calls till 4 O’clock. It is observed that OP-3 was not interested in contesting the claim of complainant and therefore, vide order dated 16.12.2020, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                         As per office report, notice was also issued to OP-4 through registered cover, but it did not receive back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been mis laid in transit. Despite waiting till several dates, OP-4 did not make appearance in this Commission, statutory period expired and therefore vide order dated 19.04.2021, OP-4 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence

cc  no. 122 of 2020

document Ex C-1, duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex C-2 and then, closed his evidence.

8                                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Ex OP-1, 2/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2.

9                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                                              Ld Counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that complainant purchased an E-scooter from OP-3 against proper bill Ex C-1 for Rs.39,900/-on 26.10.2019. Complainant has alleged that at the time of purchase, OP-3 assured her that for driving the said scooter no registration is required and she can get the same insured at any time. And after two days, when complainant approached OP-3 for getting done the insurance of her vehicle, OP-3 referred her to OP-1, who said that he would consult high officials before insuring the vehicle. Since then, complainant has approached OPs several times,

cc  no. 122 of 2020

but all have been putting her off on one pretext or the other. Further submitted that all vehicles of her family have been insured from OP-1 and 2 and due to this reason, complainant wants to get insured her vehicle from OP-1 and 2 only. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several requests to insure her vehicle, OPs paid no heed to her requests which amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused harassment to her. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 2.

11                                                To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 argued that there is no privy of contract between complainant and them and complainant is not their consumer. OP-1 and 2 stressed mainly on the point that complainant is not their consumer as they have never  received any premium or any consideration amount from complainant for making insurance of said vehicle and thus, there is no such relationship of consumer and service provider between them.  As per OP-1 and OP-2, there is no there is no deficiency in service on their part and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

cc  no. 122 of 2020

12                                               After careful perusal of the record available on file and going through the evidence led by parties, it is observed that vehicle purchased by complainant is e-scooter which is not registered with District Transport Office and does not require any registration certificate. As per Motor Vehicle Act, any vehicle that is not registered with District Transport Office, can not be insured with Insurance Company. In India electric scooter is considered like a bicycle and it does not require registration. Insurance Companies need vehicle registration to process or offer insurance to ply on the roads, but a electric vehicles are not required to get themselves registered and due to this reason Insurance Companies deny insurance cover.        

13                                               Moreover, no consideration is ever received by either Insurance Company or Seller for doing insurance of vehicle in question and thus, complainant is not their consumer. Even no assurance was ever given by Insurance Company in this regard.

14                                                      From the above discussion, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not insuring the vehicle in question. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However,

cc  no. 122 of 2020

there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 10.05.2022

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                         

 Member                         Member

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc  no. 122 of 2020

Pammi Arora     Vs    New India Assurance Company

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

                    OP-3 and OP-4  Exparte.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. There are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 10.05.2022

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

 Member                         Member