Delhi

East Delhi

CC/328/2013

SHRI DEEPAK MUNJAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAGHUVANSHI ENTER. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 328/13

 

Shri Deepak Munjal

R/o D-44, Jhilmil Colony

Delhi – 110 095                                                        ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

ZB-11/487, Main G.T. Road

Dilshad Garden, Shahdara

New Delhi – 110 095

 

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

A-501, 5^th Floor, Building No. 4

Infinity Park, Dindoshi Malad (E)

Mumbai, Maharashtra - 4000097                                       …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 20.04.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 06.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 10.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Deepak Munjal against Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a vehicle TATA Vista (Aura) on 01.01.2011 bearing registration no. DL-5C-G-1547 from M/s. Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and insured the same with TATA Motor Insurance vide policy no. 064001/0140000340/000000/00 w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 (midnight) by paying a premium of          Rs. 14,028/-.

            It was stated that the said vehicle met with an accident and sisa (marbel) was broken.  When the complainant visited the office of respondent for repair, he was told that engine number was wrongly mentioned on the policy and sisa (marbel) could not be replaced. 

            It was further stated that at the time of renewal of policy, the complainant was assured that they will correct the engine number in the policy.  The complainant gave the consent for renewal and paid a sum of Rs. 10,034/- for insurance. 

            The vehicle of the complainant again met with an accident.  That time also the complainant could not get the vehicle repaired as time of the policy was wrongly mentioned on the policy papers.  The complainant visited the office of respondent and after 25 days, respondent corrected the policy and complainant repaired his vehicle and filed the claim form alongwith all necessary documents.  Despite this, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 9,500/- vide receipt no. 580 dated 13.12.2012.  As respondent failed to provide any service to the complainant, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund Rs. 9,500/-; repair the vehicle; to pay an amount of               Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.        

3.         In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Raghuvanshi  Motors   (OP-1), they have taken various pleas such as the present complaint comes within the purview of civil courts; answering respondent was not the necessary party and the dispute was between the complainant and the insurance company.  All other facts have also been denied. 

            In the Written Statement filed on behalf of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that the vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 17.11.2012 and on 20.11.2012.  For the first claim, they allowed the replacement of windscreen and Rs. 4,845/- was paid directly to the account of Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) as per terms and conditions keeping in view the surveyor report.  

            For the second claim, they allowed damage to the front bumper and transferred Rs. 4,530/- to the account of Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) as the complainant had availed cashless facility. 

            It was also stated that policy with the corrected engine number was issued to the complainant which was due to typographical error in the previous policy.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) have examined Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head-North Zone Claims and AR of OP, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of insurance policy (Ex.RW-2/1), copy of claim form dated 17.11.2012 (Ex.RW-2/2), copy of surveyor’s report for loss dated 17.11.2012     (Ex.RW-2/3), copy of claim form for loss dated 20.11.2012 (Ex.RW-2/4), copy of surveyor report    (Ex.RW-2/5).

            No evidence has been filed by Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1).

6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for OP-2 as counsel for complainant did not appear to argue and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant and the evidence of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), it has been noticed that insurance company have paid an amount of Rs. 4,845/- for the first accident which occurred on 17.11.2012 and an amount of Rs. 4,530/- for the accident occurred on 20.11.2012 which the complainant have not disclosed in his complaint.

            The case of the complainant has been that he paid an amount of      Rs. 9,500/- to Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for repair of the vehicle though his vehicle was insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2).  This receipt is of dated 13.12.2012, though the date of accident has been stated to be 20.11.2012.  the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) has been that they have paid the amount which was permissible under the policy which has been Rs. 4,530/-. 

            The fact that they have paid the amount which was permissible under the policy as per surveyor’s report, the complainant cannot ask for refund of Rs. 9,500/- which he was to pay for repair of the vehicle.  Therefore, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of Raghuvanshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) as well as Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2).  When there was no deficiency on the part of OPs, the complaint of the complainant deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President