Haryana

Ambala

CC/422/2018

Nikhil Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankush Gupta

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 422 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  18.12.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  04.03.2020.

 

Nikhil Bansal son of Jaswant Rai Bansal, resident of House No.1146/1, Kartar Nagar, Ambala City.

 

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 87, M.G. Road Ford Mumbai      Service to be affected through Divisional Manager, Civil Line Arya Chowk,           above OBC Bank, Ambala City.

2.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Civil                  Line Arya Chowk, above OBC Bank, Ambala City.

 

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OPs.        

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.6213.94 to the complainant along with interest @18% per month.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Car make Model Ford Figo in the year 2013 having chasis No.MAJ1XXRJ1DJ70160, registration No.HR01-AH2532 and thereafter he got insured the said car from time to time and presently he got insured the same from the OP No.1 & 2, vide insurance policy bearing No.35350231170300010639 on 27.11.2017, valid from 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018. The OP no.2 gave assurance to the complainant that full facilities would be provided to him. Complainant paid extra premium to the OPs No.1 & 2 for purchase of zero depreciation policy. The said car met with an accident and got damaged. Complainant took it for repair to Kanav Motors Pt. Ltd., Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Village Tepla, Ambala 133001. He duly informed the OPs No.1 and 2 about the accident. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP No.2, number of times for the repair of the vehicle, but all went in vain. OPs refused to provide cash less facility as a result whereof, he paid the repair charges to the repairer from his own pocket. Thereafter, he lodged the claim of Rs.28,052.94, with the OP No.2, it after lingering on the matter for quite some time had paid the claim amount to the tune of Rs.21,839/-. Whereas, OPs had to pay full the entire repair charges as he had purchased the zero depreciation policy. The OPs are still to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6213.94. By not releasing the full claim of the complainant, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability & cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the insurance policy in question was issued subject to terms and conditions. Their agent issued no depreciation policy to the complainant against the provisions of the policy in question. On receiving the intimation, one IRDA approved surveyor was immediately deputed to coordinate with the complainant and to assess the loss. The complainant had never contacted the OPs for cashless repair rather he supplied his cancelled cheque, for the payment of claim amount in his bank account. Inadvertently, the insurance policy of the complainant was taken as normal policy and compensation according to that was credited in the account of the complainant as requested by him. The mistake of assessment came to the notice only after receiving the summon from this Hon’ble Forum and on finding the bona fide mistake, the difference of claim amount was offered on the very first date of appearance before this Hon’ble Forum, by the OPs. Although the insurance policy was no depreciation policy, but the insured has to pay Rs.1,000/- under compulsory excess clause and the cost of consumables as there was no coverage in the policy for the same. There was no misdeed on the part of the OP and it was inadvertent mistake due to issuance of policy wrongly against the provisions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure-CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavits of Shri K.K. Sachdeva, Sr. Divn. Manager & Authorized Signatory, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Ambala and Rajesh Verma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor having its office at Flat No.162, Block G, Society Spangle Candos, Gazipur Road, Dhakoli Gazipur-160055 as Annexure OP-A & OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the car of the complainant was duly insured with the OPs for an IDV of Rs.3,05,000/- for the period from 29.11.2017 to 28.11.2018 vide policy document Annexure C-1. During the subsistence of the said policy, the car in question met with an accident and got damaged. Complainant got it repaired from Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ambala, which raised the bill of Rs.28,052.94. On lodging the claim by the complainant, OPs paid Rs.21,839/-, vide payment voucher dated 15.10.2018, Annexure OP1. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that since the policy in question was zero depreciation policy, therefore the OPs were bound to pay the entire claim amount of Rs. 28,052.94/-, without any deductions, as such, the OPs are liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.6213.94. The OPs are also liable to compensate him for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. The Learned counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the OPs paid the claim amount of Rs.21,839/-  inadvertently by treating the insurance policy as normal insurance policy and on the first day of appearance before this Hon’ble Forum they offered to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4846/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor after making deductions as per excess clause. To prove this fact that the OPs can deduct some amount under excess clause, they have not placed on record the terms and conditions of the policy. In the absence thereof, it cannot be presumed that the OPs are entitled to deduct some amount under excess clause. As such, we are of the view that the OPs are liable to pay the remaining claim amount of Rs.6213.94 (round off Rs.6214/-) to the complainant along with interest. Since, the OPs offered to pay the remaining claim amount to the complainant after filing of the present complaint, therefore certainly they are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.6214/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.12.2018 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

                  

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount mentioned at Sr. No.(i) and (ii). Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :04.03.2020.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

           Member                                      Member                         President

                                                                                                 DCDRF, Ambala.