THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2015
Date of Institution : 5.1.2015
Date of Decision : 04.08.2015
Nitin Sharma son of Ashok Kumar Sharma aged 27 years, resident of post office Street, Ferozepur City, M.No.97811-21002
...Complainant
Vs.
Novelty Hyundai, Near New Amritsar ,G.T.Road, Amritsar through its authorized signatory
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Court Road, Amritsar through its Authorized Signatory
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., The Mall,Ferozepur City through its authorized signatory
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. R.K.Dua,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate
For the opposite parties No.2 & 3 : Sh. S.S. Randhawa,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Nitin Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 31.8.2014 the complainant booked Hyundai i 20 car with opposite party No.1 and paid Rs. 10000.0 as booking amount. Thereafter the complainant got financed the said car and paid the amount of Rs. 6,71,177/- through demand drafts to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 gave delivery of the car and issued insurance cover note No. 038835 dated 28.9.2014. On 30.9.2014 opposite party No.1 made a telephone call to the complainant and requested the complainant not to drive the vehicle as the insurance cover note bearing No. 038835 which was issued by opposite party No.2 is not genuine and another insurance cover note bearing No. 038977 valid from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015 is sent to the complainant by post. Thereafter on receiving the said cover note, the complainant contacted the office of opposite party No.3 to know about the genuineness of insurance cover note and the complainant was shocked to know the fact that both the abovesaid cover notes were not entered in the record of the insurance company. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1, but they did not listen the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency of service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to issue valid
-3-
cover note. Compensation of Rs. 60000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had booked the car with the replying opposite party. It was submitted that as per request of the complainant, proforma invoice was issued by the replying opposite party mentioning all the expenses including RC, insurance and number plate. It was submitted that opposite party had delivered the car against invoice dated 28.9.2014 to the complainant and insurance cover note was also issued . It was further submitted that insurance cover note was issued by opposite party No.2 for the insurance of vehicle of the complainant but later on it was informed by opposite party No.2 that since cover note was issued on dated 28.9.2014 i.e. on Sunday and as such the same could not be entered in record and policy cannot be issued for the said period. As such opposite party No.2 had issued another cover note for the period from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015 and as such information was duly issued to the complainant and new cover note was sent to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in its written version have submitted that there is Auto tie up of insurance between opposite party No. 1 and 2 and the cover note was issued by opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2014 i.e. Sunday and the same was not
-4-
entered in the record within time as per norms of the company, as such policy could not be issued and new cover note was issued by opposite party No.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2 valid from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy cover note dated 28.9.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of policy cover note dated 3.10.2014 Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria,attorney holder Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh.S.S.Gill Ex.OP2,3/1, insurance policy Ex.OP2,3/2.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased Hyundai i 20 car in question from opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2014 and took delivery of the same on 28.9.2014. The complainant submitted that on 30.9.2014 opposite party No.1 made a telephone call to the complainant stating that insurance cover note bearing No. 038835 is not in order and they issued another insurance cover note bearing No. 038977 which is valid from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015. The complainant
-5-
contacted the office of opposite party No.3 and was surprised to know that second cover note issued by the opposite party was also not entered in the record of the Insurance company. So the second cover note issued by the opposite party dated 3.10.2014 was also doubtful. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas case of the opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that there is auto tie up between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and cover note was issued by opposite party No.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2 and the said cover note was issued by opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2014 which was Sunday and the same was not entered in the record within time as per norms of the Insurance company. Therefore, the policy could not be issued. Resultantly new cover note was issued by opposite party No.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2 valid from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015 which is quite genuine and valid. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. Whereas complainant has not alleged any dispute against opposite party No.1 in this complaint.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Hyundai I-20 car in question from opposite party No.1 on 28.9.2014. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 issued insurance cover note bearing 038835
-6-
dated 28.9.2014 regarding the said car. However, that insurance cover note was not in order and the complainant was informed by opposite party No.1 in this regard. There after opposite parties No.2 & 3 issued insurance cover note bearing No. 038977 dated 3.10.2014 regarding the aforesaid car which was valid for the period from 3.10.2014 to 2.10.2015. Opposite party submitted that the said insurance cover note is quite valid and genuine. However, due to internal tie up with opposite party No.1, genuine insurance cover note could not be issued by opposite parties No.2 & 3 to the complainant on 28.9.2014. So they issued genuine insurance cover note regarding the aforesaid car to the complainant on 3.10.2014. All this shows that opposite parties got the amount of insurance premium from the complainant on 28.9.2014 but they issued valid and genuine insurance cover note to the complainant regarding the car in question on 3.10.2014 i.e. after a lapse of a period of 6 days. So the complainant could not drive the vehicle in question for 6 days. As such he suffered harassment and could not make proper use of his car because he was not issued genuine insurance cover note by opposite parties No.2 & 3 regarding the car in question from 28.9.2014 to 3.10.2014. Resultantly this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
12. Consequently we hold that complainant is entitled to compensation for this lapse/deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3.
13. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties
-7-
No.2 & 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2500/-. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
4.08.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
