Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/38/2019

Pankaj Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 38 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 14.02.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 21.02.2024

 

Pankaj Parkash son of Shri Anand Parkash R/o Hanuman Gate, Parjapati Gali, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021.

                                                  ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager having office at: Circular Road, Opposite Nehru Park, Bhiwani-127021.

...Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Pawan Kumar Bedwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Sanesh Choudhary, Advocate for OP.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is registered owner of a car bearing regn. No. HR-16N-5206, make Hyundai, Model 2014 Grand i-10, white colour (hereinafter referred to as vehicle). The vehicle met with an accident on 10.07.2018, three parts of the vehicle got damaged, car was parked at authorized workshop-Raghu Hyundai, Bhiwani on 11.07.2018. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with OP insurance company for Zero Depreciation Insurance & Cashless insurance policy.  So, OP was informed about the incident and lodged claim as well. Surveyor was appointed. Vehicle was repaired on 23.07.2018 and the workshop issued bill for Rs.19,900/- but the workshop and OP insurance company denied for cashless facility to the complainant, so complainant had to pay Rs.19,900/- from his own pocket. However, OP insurance company released Rs.15,940/- in the month of August 2018.  Legal notice dated 07.01.2019 was served upon the OP but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and thereby causing mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss to him. Complainant has sought directions against the OP to pay Rs.3960/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 13.08.2018.  Further to pay Rs.18.00 lac on account of harassment. Any other relief, including litigation expenses, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of the complaint, cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it is stated that as per policy terms, the amount of Rs.15,940/- has already released to the complainant which was duly accepted by him under full satisfaction. The parts for car left away are not covered under the policy. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP tendered in evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                 Perusal of insurance policy (Ex. C-3) reveals that the policy covers NIL DEPRECIATION clause for which extra premium was paid by complainant.  The work shop Raghu Hyundai has issued bill for repairs to the tune of Rs.19,900/- (Ex. C-4) and such amount was paid by complainant vide receipt annexed with this exhibit.  Admittedly, the complainant has received Rs.15,940/- but the OP insurance company denied for Rs.3960/- thus cause has arisen to complainant to file this complaint.

7.                 After having heard learned counsels for the parties and going through the record, it is observed that no reason shown by the OP to deduct Rs.3960/- from the bill payment made by complainant.  Further, the policy was issued for Nil Depreciation, in such a situation, the amount was to be paid by OP insurance company whereas surprisingly, the amount had to pay by complainant.  In view of the above, we have come to conclusion that the OP insurance company wrongly and illegally deducted the amount from the claim of complainant. By such act of Op, the complainant must have suffered monetary loss as well mental agony and physical harassment. It is pertinent to mention here that for such a petty amount the complainant has to knock the doors of this Commission and must have incur handsome amount on such litigation to get relief. Had the OP redressed grievance of complainant at their own level then this matter would not have arisen. As such, the OP insurance company is deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.3960/- (Rs.Three thousand nine hundred sixty) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)     To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) towards litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced.

Dated:21.02.2024.