Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/97

Surinder Mohan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

SH. Gagandeep Singh Brar, Adv

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 97of 16.10.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    07.03.2019

 

 

Surinder Mohan Gupta, son of Sh. Prabh Dyal, resident of House No.1798, 3/13, Ward No.9, Pucca Bagh, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. New India Assurance Company Limited, 1215, Navrang House 21, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Regional Manager  
2. Insurance Agent of New India Assurance Company Limited at CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. Village Rangilpur, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. H.C. Verma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

O.P. No.2 ex-parte 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Sh. Surinder Mohan Gupta, son of Sh. Prabh Dyal, resident of House No.1798, 3/13, Ward No.9, Pucca Bagh, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2  to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- paid by the complainant in excess along with interest 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony harassment and emotional distress; to pay the litigation expenses, which this Hon’ble Forum deems just and proper for the filing and perusing the present complaint; any other relief, which this Hon’ble Forum deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the new car make Wagon R of Maruti Company Model VXI. The salesman of CM Auto Pvt. Ltd introduced the complainant with O.P. No.2 i.e. insurance agent of OP No.1. The insurance agent of OP No.1 had approached the complainant to get his vehicle insured from their company i.e. OP No.1, who has business tie up with Maruti Suzuki Company and CM Auto Pvt. Ltd. The complainant insisted that he would get his new vehicle insured from other insurance company outside the agency but the salesman in connivance with insurance agents of O.Ps. mischievously allured him that he would get discount if he will buy the insurance from this company. Complainant issued the cheque of HSBC Bank of Rs.19733/- in favour of O.P. No.1 and insurance policy was issued by OP No.2. When, the complainant visited the local office of OP No.1 situated at Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar City then he came to know that he has been cheated and Rs.9000/- approximately in excess was charged by the O.P. No.2 from him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, O.P. No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it is stated that complainant has paid Rs.19733/- through cheque as the insurance premium for the car and the O.P. no.1 has issued a policy mentioned in this para of the application on 14.11.2017 and the premium amount of the policy is Rs.19,733/- mentioned in the receipt and schedule of the policy, which is correct as per terms and conditions of the insurance company. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On notice, none has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.03.2019.
5. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Kamlesh Aggarwal, Sr. Divisional Manager, Ex.OP1/A along with copy of policy Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. Complainant counsel Sh. Gagandeep Singh, argued that Surinder Mohan Gupta (complainant) purchased one new car from the Maruti Suzuki Company and then got insured from OP No.1. At the time of issuance of the policy, complainant demanded Rs.19733/- which were paid by the complainant through cheque bearing No.21337845 dated 14.11.2017. Later on, the complainant visited the local office of the O.P. No.1 and he came to know that he has been cheated as he was charged excess Rs.9000/-. Complainant requested various times to the O.Ps. to refund the excess amount but without any result. Hence, the present complaint. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.
8. Sh. H.C. Verma, counsel for the O.P. No.1 argued that no doubt the complainant had purchased the car from the dealer and for the issuance of the insurance policy approached the O.P. No.1, who charged Rs.19,733/- vide receipt/policy Ex.C1. Then Sh. Verma, brought into the notice of this forum Ex.OP1/D & Ex.OP1/E and prayed that no excess amount was charged. Rather whatsoever was charged the receipt was given, policy was issued and the entire amount of Rs.19,733/- was deposited into the account of New India Assurance Company Limited. So, O.Ps. cannot be held responsible for any of the deficiency. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint as without merit.
9. Complainant in his complaint did not plead the date of purchase of the car but referred to the issuance of the policy dated 14.11.2017 by the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 did not deny the receipt of the premium as well as the issuance of the policy. The dispute among the parties is whether O.Ps. charged excess amount other then the required premium which is to be decided by this forum. So, it is a consumer dispute and the complaint is maintainable.
10. Coming to the fact whether deficiency is made out on the part of O.Ps. or not. Besides the pleadings, Ex.C1 is the photocopy of the policy dated 14.11.2017 vide which on calculation of various heads the total premium charged is Rs.19,733/-. At the same time, complainant placed on file Ex.C2, which is hand written and is not signed by any of the agent of the O.Ps. in which the figure mentioned figure is Rs.10704/- there is no detail of GST, third party premium etc. Ex.C3 is the legal notice. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, O.P. relied upon Ex.OP1/B which is again policy relied upon by the complainant and premium mentioned is Rs.19,733/-. Another piece of evidence is hand written which is the detailed calculation towards premium in which as per the invoice price of the vehicle Rs.4,47,308/- deduction is 5% then the premium counted in view of the horsepower equal to CC. The chart is as below:-

Invoice
-discount 5%
DD @ 3.039%
25% Anti Theft
-12.07% Spl list
	Rs 2055/-
	Rs 100/-
	Rs 50/-
+Engine @.20
+RTI @.20%	Rs 895/-
+18% SIA

 

Which was issued under the signatures of the authorized agent of the O.Ps. Beside this O.Ps. relied upon Ex.OP1/D section 2 which is relating to the tariff rates. Ex.OP1/E is premium schedule consisting of four leaves.

11.   This forum has appreciated the documentary evidence as well as claim of the complainant then the case set up by the O.Ps. Complainant purchased the policy on 14.11.2017 and admittedly paid Rs.19,733/- which is not denied by the O.Ps. Present complaint is pertaining to the October 2018 when the policy was to expire within a month. At the time of purchase, complainant approached to the O.Ps. who calculated the premium relying upon the basic price of the vehicle, RTI engine safety, third party as well as GST 18% then counted Rs.19,733/- and that amount was deposited by the complainant after full satisfaction. Now after about 11 months  the complainant has challenged the policy relying upon the hand written rough estimate, but to rebut this the O.Ps have placed on file the premium schedule as well as the calculation relying upon the invoice. Now dispute has arisen after about 11 months when the policy is going to expire. More so, no deficiency is made out and complainant remains unsuccessful in satisfying this forum.
12.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
13.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                     (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated:07.03.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER