Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1046/2016

Virender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

11 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1046 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	2.12.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	11.5.2017

 

 

 

 

Virender Singh son of Sh. Bhupinder Singh H. No.428, Preet Colony, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Head Office: Oriental House A-25/28, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

2.   The oriental Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

 

3.   Barkeley Hyundai, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

S.S. Panesar                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Devinder Kumar, Adv.
For OPs No.1&2	:	Sh. B.R. Madan, Adv.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Hyundai car from OP No.3 and got the same insured with OPs No.1&2 through OP No.3 by paying a sum of Rs.11,633/- towards premium of the insurance.  The vehicle was insured bumper to bumper.  As such it was assured to the complainant that in case of any damage the complainant would get full claim and there will be no deduction.  On 8.8.2016 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and due intimation was given to the OPs. Under the instructions of the OPs NO.1&2 the vehicle was taken to OP No.3 who prepared the estimate. The OPs No.1&2 appointed a surveyor who inspected the car. The car was got repaired and complainant was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.46,233/-  though  cashless facility was promised by the OPs. It is alleged that later on the OPs No.1&2 only transferred a sum of Rs.28,674/- in the account of the complainant without giving any reason for deduction of amount. Aggrieved with this act of the OPs the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.

3.          The OP Nos. 1&2 filed its written statement stated that on receipt of intimation with regard to the loss in question the answering OPs deputed a surveyor who assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.28,674/- which were disbursed to the account of complainant. After disbursement of assessed amount to the complainant the answering OPs received mail dated 7.10.2016 from the OP No.3 in which it was mentioned that three parts were not mentioned in bill and requested to consider the same.  Considering the request of the repairer the answering OPs further released an amount of Rs.14,101/- and as such no cause of action has arisen against the answering OPs. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.               OP No.3 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the vehicle in question was brought to the answering OP on 9.8.2016 for repair under insurance policy.  When the official of answering OP collected necessary documents for taking the claim including registration certificate of the vehicle it came out that the model of the car of complainant was wrongly entered in the registration certificate. Since there was difference in description of vehicle in insurance policy and the registration certificate , the complainant was informed that it would not be possible to get cashless claim due to the complication in the differences of description therefore, the complainant agreed  for getting the job work of his damage car done on payment basis and thereafter to claim the insurance amount.  The complainant paid Rs.46,233/- towards the repair of the vehicle.   It is pleaded that no cause of action has arisen against the answering OP as his vehicle was insured by OPs No.1&2 and the insurance amount was to be paid by them.  The answering OP has no role to settle or repudiate the claim of the complainantDenying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

6.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.  

 

8.          The main the grievance of the complainant is that in spite of having bumper to bumper insurance for the vehicle in question, cashless facility was not provided and even the amount was reimbursed by the OPs NO.1&2 in parts and did not pay the total claim amount to the complainant.

 

9.           On perusal of the documents we find that total bill amount was for the repair of the vehicle was Rs.46,233/-. The OPs No.1&2 reimbursed Rs.28,674/- and thereafter during pendency of this complaint the OPs NO.1&2 reimbursed further, an amount of Rs.14,101/-, which itself is indicative that the part amount was paid only after the filing of this complaint, which shows the negligent attitude of the OPs No.1&2 thereby causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Even the OPs NO.1&2 has not reimbursed balance amount of Rs.3,458/-. Thus, in our opinion they are liable to pay to the complainant the remaining amount of Rs.3,458/-.  Hence OPs No.1&2 are deficient in rendering service.

 

10.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1&2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1&2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1&2 are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,458/- towards the claim of the complainant.

 

[b]  To make payment of 4000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

11.        The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

12.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11.5.2017

                                           DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER