Delhi

North East

CC/65/2019

Lalit Sachdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.R. Sawhney Motor Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 65/19

 

In the matter of:

 

	Lalit Sachdev S/o Lt. Shri M.S. Arora R/o C-12/439, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	T.R. Sawhney Motor Pvt. Ltd. Harichand Mela Ram Complex Mail Road, Wazirabad Road Meet Nagar, Delhi   Royal Sundram Insurance Co. Ltd. 605, 6th Floor, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

29.05.2019 05.08.2022 12.08.2022

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a car insurance policy for his car bearing no. DL3CCA2263 from Opposite Party No-2 through Opposite Party No-1 the said policy was valid from 08.08.2018 to 07.08.2019 and the said insurance policy was cashless. On 11.03.19 his car met with an accident. He was told by Opposite Party No-1 that repair work cannot be done under the said policy and this was so because Opposite Party No-1 has refused to carry out the repair work under the insurance policy. The Complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.13,407/- which he had incurred for the repair of his car along with interest @ 18 % p.a. He has also prayed for Rs.25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses. .

Case of Opposite Parties

2. The defence of Opposite Party No-1 was struck off vide order dated 12.12.2019. The Opposite Party No-2 filed the written statement wherein it has stated that the Complainant purchased insurance policy for his car bearing no. DL3CCA2263 which was valid from 08.08.2018 to 07.08.2019. it is stated that the complaint is without any merit it is stated by Opposite Party No-2 that the claim of the Complainant was rejected in accordance with terms and conditions of the said policy . It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No-2 wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties No-2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Shri Srivatsa Raghavan working as Executive- Legal & TP claims at Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd office at Subramanian Building, 2^nd Floor, No.1, club House Road, Chennai-600002 and affidavit of Shri Pradeep Kumar, Surveyor of Opposite Party No-2 wherein they have supported the case of Opposite Party No-2 as mentioned in the complaint

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Counsels for Opposite Party No-1 and Opposite Party No-2. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that his care was insured with Opposite Party No-2. His car met with an accident and Opposite Party No-1 refused to do the cashless repair work on the ground that it was not covered under the insurance policy. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the damage caused to the car of the Complainant was not fresh and it was not relevant and on this account the claim of the Complainant was rejected.

It is an admitted fact that car of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party No-2. However, the claim of the Complainant was rejected by Opposite Party No-2 on the ground that it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Opposite Party No-2 did not lead any cogent evidence to support this plea and therefore the same cannot be accepted.

In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No-2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,407/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party No-2 shall also pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses. This amount shall also carry an interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.

7. Order announced on 12.08.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President