Delhi

North West

CC/826/2014

PAWAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/826/2014
( Date of Filing : 22 Jul 2014 )
 
1. PAWAN KUMAR
3254/236,CHANDER NAGAR,TRI NAGAR,DELHI-110035
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
AGARWAL PRESTIGE TOER,30/308,3RD FLOR,PLOTNO.2,ROAD NO.44,MAIN ROAD,PITAMPURA,DELHI-110034
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Jul 2023
Final Order / Judgement

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

  1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL-5CJ-0480  insured with the OP vide policy bearing no. 015204767001 w.e.f. 04.08.2013 to 03.08.2014. On 02.04.2014 the complainant parked his vehicle in Dakshin Puri and when he returned back he found that his vehicle was damaged by  some unknown person. Complainant informed the police regarding the incidence and also lodged the FIR. He also sent his vehicle for getting repair to the service center of the Maruti Company.
  2. It is alleged by the complainant that he immediately informed the OP ins. Co. regarding the accident in question. The Ins. Co. provide two claim no. 2834518 and 2857634 regarding the accident in question. It is alleged by the complainant that initially the OP Ins. Co. denied the claim under one pretext or the other. However, later on release the claim by arbitrary deduction of Rs. 500/-. It is alleged by the complainant that no justification has been given by the OP Ins. Co. regarding the deduction of additional sum of Rs. 500/- out of the total claim despite deducting Rs. 2000/- on account of compulsory deductible cost. It is alleged by the complainant that wrongful deductions of Rs. 500/- by OP clearly establish the case of deficiency of service on the part of OP, hence this complaint.
  3. Complaint has been contested by OP. OP filed written statement wherein it denied any deficiency in service. It is further stated that the claim no. 620766236 was settled by OP Ins. Co. for a sum of Rs. 1633/- including the amount towards depreciation reimbursement cover and another claim no. 620774059 settled for a sum of Rs. 1809/- against the total sum of Rs. 3442/- towards the depreciation reimbursement cover was made to M/s AM Automobile after reinspection of the said vehicle. It is further stated that OP Ins. Co. had deducted a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards compulsory deduction out of the total claim. Since the OP Ins. Co. had settled the claim of the complainant and had paid the entire claim amount as per policy terms and conditions, the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
  4. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by complainant. Despite several opportunity OP failed to address the arguments.
  5. Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy documents, repairing bills, the payments made by the OP against the claims in question. It is argued by complainant that he incurred a total cost of Rs. 6033/- in repairing the vehicle in question. Out of 6033/- Rs. 2000/- was deducted by OP Ins. Co. under the pretext of compulsory deduction. The OP Ins. Co. is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 4033/- after deduction but OP Ins. Co. paid to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3442 against the claim after arbitrarily deducting a sum of Rs. 591/-. The OP Ins. Co. failed to justify the deduction of Rs. 591/- through its pleading. No cogent reason/documentary evidence was placed on record by the OP Ins. Co. against the deduction of Rs. 591/-. Hence we are of the considered view that OP Ins. Co. had arbitrarily deducted a sum of Rs. 591/- from the total claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on its parts.
  6. We therefore hold OP Ins. Co. guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:
  1.  Refund to complainant a sum of Rs.591/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.05.2014 till realization.
  2. Pay to complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant which will also include the cost of litigation.

 

  1. OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance  till realization.

 

 

  1. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on27.07.2023.

 

 

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                           RAJESH            

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                MEMBER

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.