DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Mr. Sunny Goyal age 24 years s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, resident of House No.2625, Sector 71, Mohali.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Co., SCO No.232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Sunny Goyal, complainant in person alongwith

Sh. Tavinder Singla, counsel for the complainant

Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Proxy counsel for

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for the opposite party.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Sunny Goyal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs- :

i)                   To refund a sum of Rs.6,310/- alongwith interest

ii)                To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental tension etc.

iii)              To pay Rs.11,000/- towards counsel fee.

iv)              To pay Rs.2,000/- as misc. expenses

v)                 Any other relief.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his car bearing registration No.CH01-AF-4932 insured from the opposite party for the period 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012 under DEP CAP Scheme. 

According to the complainant, his vehicle met with an accident and he got the same repaired from the authorised service station of the opposite party.  It has been averred that as per the DEP CAP scheme, the complainant was supposed to pay Rs.1,500/- only.  However, the complainant paid Rs.7,810/- to the authorised service station vide invoice dated 20.3.2012 on the assurance of the opposite party that the difference amount would be refunded within 10 days.  However, the opposite party failed to refund the difference amount in spite of repeated visits and service of legal notice dated 7.5.2012 by the complainant.

In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In its written statement the opposite party admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it for the period 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012.  It has also been admitted that the said vehicle met with an accident and was got repaired at its authorised service station.  However, it has been averred that upon receipt of intimation on 9.3.2012 an IRDA Licensed independent surveyor M/s B & S Insurance was appointed to asses the loss. The said surveyor, after inspection, assessed the net liability of the opposite party at Rs.13,183/- which was offered to the complainant.  It has further been averred that since the complainant had opted for a depreciation reimbursement policy, a further amount of Rs.6056/- towards deprecation reimbursement was paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person alongwith his counsel, ld. Proxy counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           It is the admitted case of the parties that the car was insured with the opposite party for the period 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012.  It is also admitted case of the parties that the car met with an accident and was got repaired from the authorised agency of the opposite party.  According to the complainant he paid Rs.7,810/- at the time of taking back the delivery of the car from the garage although he was required to pay Rs.1,500/- only.   Thus, it has been contended that the opposite party was required to reimburse him Rs.6,310/- but it failed to do so.

6.                           On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of the information regarding accident, a loss assessor was deputed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,183/-. The opposite party paid the above said amount.  In addition to this, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party was required to pay the amount towards reimbursement of the depreciation of the parts replaced. This amount was assessed as Rs.6,056/-.  According to the opposite party, it had paid the above said amount to the complainant.

7.                           Thus, admittedly, the opposite party was liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,056/- to the complainant.  The case of the complainant is that he has not received the aforesaid amount whereas the case of the opposite party is that it had already paid the abovesaid amount. 

8.                           During the course of arguments, ld. Proxy Counsel for the opposite party asserted that an amount of Rs.6,056/- has been sent to the complainant through courier.  He was asked to prove this fact by any cogent evidence.  However, he failed to prove this fact by any cogent evidence despite the fact that the case was adjourned a number of times for this purpose.  Ultimately on 8.2.2013, ld. Counsel for the opposite party undertook that in case he could not verify if the amount of Rs.6,056/- had been debited from the account of the opposite party, the same shall be paid to the complainant on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.2.2013.  On the next two dates i.e. 22.2.2013 and 1.3.2013, the ld. Counsel for the opposite party sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 19.3.2013.  Ultimately on 19.3.2013, ld. Proxy counsel for the opposite party stated that the draft of Rs.6,056/- has been sent to the complainant.  The complainant on the other hand made a statement that he has not received the draft so far.  There is no evidence on record that the said draft has been received by the complainant. 

9.                           It is pertinent to mention here that from the very beginning the case of the opposite party is that the above said amount had been paid to the complainant.  This version of the opposite party stands falsified from the conduct of the opposite party itself.  According to the opposite party, the draft of Rs.6,056/- was despatched on 18.3.2013 through courier.  Thus it is clear that the amount of Rs.6,056/- was not paid by the opposite party to the complainant till the final hearing of this case and a false plea was taken by it regarding payment of the above said amount.  Non payment of the agreed amount amounts to deficiency in service.  Further, the conduct of the opposite party in gaining time and asserting that the amount has been paid has caused a lot of mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

10.                       In these circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :-

i)                   To pay the amount of Rs.6,056/- to the complainant.

ii)                To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

iii)              To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.                       This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

12.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.3.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER