BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 298 of 2018
Date of Institution : 06.12.2018
Date of Decision : 06.08.2019
Pyara Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of Dhani Rai Sikh Wali, village Kariwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Renault Sirsa, Hisar Road, Khairpur Colony, Opp. Traffic Police Station, Sirsa, Haryana.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Hotel Jai Vilas, NH 10, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Haryana.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. GE Plaza 1st Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune, Maharashtra- 411006.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…..MEMBER
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sushil Saharan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a Car Kwid RXT 800cc from opposite party no.1 on 22.3.2018 and he wanted to get his car insured from National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. for a premium of Rs.9381/- but the ops told him that as per their policy he has to get his car insured from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited and as such he got insured his car from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company against his will for a premium of Rs.19,077/- which is higher by an amount of Rs.9696/- from the premium of National Insurance company. That on 29.3.2018, a motor cyclist hit the above said car from rear end and as a result of which the car of complainant was damaged. The complainant contacted with ops no.1 and 2 and detailed about the whole incident upon which they advised the complainant to take the car to op no.1 and gave assurance about the claim. On the next day i.e. 30.3.2018, the complainant took the car to op no.1 and there he met with Body Shop Advisor of op no.1 and he told to the complainant that total damage of the car is about Rs.4500/- and he will have to complete the formalities in order to claim the amount for damage from ops no.2 and 3 upon which the complainant signed the necessary documents and was asked to come after three days to take the car. That to the surprise of complainant, he received a call from op no.1 after 15-20 minutes regarding the fact that the bumper of the car is not damaged and replacement of other parts will take around 10 days but after 10 days, the matter was lingered on one pretext or the other. It is further submitted that on 10.4.2018 at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant visited the op no.1 and inquired about his car, they stated that they have received the parts from the company but in order to replace the damaged parts of the car, he has to deposit the amount as the ops no.2 and 3 have denied his claim. The complainant told the op no.1 that he has deposited the insurance premium amount for the full cover of damage and still they are not replacing the damaged parts but the ops remained adamant on their demand and the damaged lights were replaced after the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2124/-. It is further averred that complainant visited the ops many a times in order to settle his claim but they denied. That the complainant sent a legal notice to the ops suggesting the ops to make the payment of Rs.11,820/- i.e. Rs.2124/- deposited by complainant for replacement of damaged light and the amount of Rs.9696/- i.e. extra amount of premium alongwith interest but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 3 appeared. OP no.1 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant himself opted for cashless zero depreciation insurance policy and had paid the insurance premium accordingly at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Now the complainant cannot say that he was getting the insurance policy from the market at some concessional rate as the same may not contain cashless and zero depreciation facilities to the complainant. It is further submitted that no such amount was claimed from the complainant by the answering op. The complainant was asked to deposit the file processing charges as required under the terms of insurance policy. Remaining contents of complaint are denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant on 5.3.2019.
4. Op no.3 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as soon as the claim was intimated to the ops, an IRDA approved independent surveyor Sh. N.K. Gupta was appointed who assessed the loss and gave his report. The claim is paid as assessed by surveyor and in terms and conditions of policy. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The parties then led their respective evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on record copy of registration certificate Ex.C1, copy of policy schedule Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice Ex.C3 and Ex.C4, copies of receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C8, copy of quotation of premium calculation Ex.C9, copy of repair order Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Jai Singh, Sr. Executive Legal Manager Ex.R1 and documents i.e. copy of survey report Ex.R1/B and copy of payment detail Ex. Ex.R1/B. Op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Mohit Garg, Director Ex.RW2/A, copy of tax invoice and copy of receipt Ex.R2, Ex.R3, copy of letter Ex.R4 and copy of tax invoice Ex.R5.
8. Admittedly, the complainant is owner of car bearing registration No. HR44J/ 9238 which was purchased by complainant from op no.1 and same was got insured from op no.3 on payment of premium of Rs.19,077/-. It is further admitted fact on record that vehicle of complainant met with an accident and claim was lodged with op no.3 and Sh. N.K. Gupta, Surveyor was appointed who submitted his survey report, on the basis of which claim was settled.
9. As per contention of complainant, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2124/- on account of repair charges from his own pocket though the vehicle was having comprehensive insurance and there was no liability of the complainant to pay any amount. As per defence plea of the insurance company, they have already paid Rs.1388/- to the complainant directly in his account on 28.5.2018, but however, complainant has concealed this fact in his complaint that he has already received this amount of Rs.1388/- in his account from the insurance company. Even the complainant has not deposed even a single word qua this fact in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. On the other hand, op no.3 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Jai Singh, Sr. Executive Legal Manager Ex.R1 in which he has categorically deposed that an amount of Rs.2897/- was paid to service center vide UTR No.814818468671 dated 28.5.2018 and remaining amount of Rs.1388/- was paid to the insured Pyara Singh vide UTR No.814818468805 dated 28.5.2018. So this contention of learned counsel for complainant appears to be devoid of merit.
10. The second contention of learned counsel for complainant is that op no.1 in connivance with op no.3 has charged an excess amount of Rs.9696/- on account of insurance premium charges. As per his contention, National Insurance Company had offered their policy against the premium of Rs.9381/-, whereas op no.1 on behalf of op no.3 had charged Rs.19,077/- from the complainant and complainant deserves to get refund of amount of Rs.9696/-. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any document to show that what was to be covered by the policy of the National Insurance Company and he has not placed on record any terms and conditions of the policy which was to be issued by the National Insurance Company nor he has placed any document from which it could be presumed that he had been enjoying same coverage of the risk which has been provided by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company by issuing policy to the vehicle of complainant. So it appears from the record that complainant has failed to prove his allegations leveled in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
11. In view of above, the present complaint of the complaint stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:06.08.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
