DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 72/2017
Date of Institution : 05.06.2017
Date of Decision : 20.09.2017
Parwinder Singh Dhillon aged about 57 years son of Bakhtaur Singh resident of Tallewal, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Toyota EM PEE Motors Limited, Pioneer Toyota, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Signatory/Responsible Person/Proprietor.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Branch Office Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte.
Ms. Richa counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Parwinder Singh Dhillon has filed the present complaint against Toyota EM PEE Motors Limited, Bathinda opposite party No. 1 and National Insurance Company Limited, Barnala opposite party No. 2 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing No. PB-19-K/8965 and it was insured from the opposite party No. 2 vide insurance policy No. 404201/31/16/61000001583 for 19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017.
3. It is alleged that in the month of January 2017 due to fog the car of the complainant was met with an accident at Bajakhana Road, Barnala and incident was informed to the opposite party NO. 2 and car was repaired from opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 3,36,343/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1. However, the opposite party No. 2 in connivance with opposite party No. 1 credited only an amount of Rs. 2,73,484/- in the account of the complainant instead of Rs. 3,36,343/-. Thus, it is alleged that the opposite party has paid Rs. 63,859/- as less amount and it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 63,859/- as claim of insurance.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of humiliation and harassment
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
4. Upon of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 was duly served but failed to appear and therefore the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No. 2 through their counsel appeared but they failed to file the written version despite expiry of the statutory period.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of receipt Ex.C-3, copies of bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-13, copy of account statement of PNB Ex.C-14, copy of account statement of HDFC Bank Ex.C-15, copy of legal notice Ex.C-16, original postal receipts Ex.C-17, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence. Written arguments also filed by the complainant.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant no evidence led by the opposite party No. 2. Written arguments also not filed by the opposite party No. 2.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that his Innova car bearing No. PB-19-K/8965 was duly insured from National Insurance Company opposite party No. 2 for 19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017 vide insurance policy No. 404201/31/16/61000001583. The learned counsel further contended that in the month of January 2017 his car met with an accident and the it was repaired from the opposite party No. 1 and the payment of Rs. 3,36,343/- was made to the opposite party No. 1. Learned counsel further submitted that, however the opposite party No. 2 insurance company gave the credit of Rs. 2,73,484/- against the repaired amount of Rs. 3,36,343/- without any reason. The learned counsel further submitted that the opposite party failed to file written statement as well as led any evidence for the less payment of Rs. 63,859/- and therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay the said amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
9. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record the detailed affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the certificate of registration of the vehicle in question. Ex.C-3 is the Tax Receipt showing the payment of Rs. 47,302/-. Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 are the copies of the bills issued by the opposite party No. 1 showing the expenses regarding repairs incurred to the tune of Rs. 3,36,343/-. Ex.C-13 is the certificate of insurance policy issued by the opposite party No. 2 showing that the vehicle in question is insured from 19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017 and premium of Rs. 27,213/- has been paid. Ex.C-14 is the copy of account statement of Punjab National Bank which shows that an amount of Rs. 2,73,484/- has been credited in the account of the complainant. Ex.C-15 is the copy of account statement of HDFC Bank which shows that on 15.2.2017 an amount of Rs. 3,36,343/- has been withdrawn in favour of the opposite party No. 1. On the basis of the said entries it was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the insurance company opposite party No. 2 has paid less amount of Rs. 63,859/- without any reason.
10. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded exparte and opposite party No. 2 appeared through their counsel but neither written statement was filed nor any evidence was led. Even, no document has been placed on record as to why the less payment was made than the actual charged by the opposite party No. 1. No detail of any deductions made by the opposite party No. 2 has been placed on record to justify the said less amount. The complainant has also issued legal notice to the opposite party but even no reply of this notice has been given by the opposite party to rebut the case of the complainant.
11. In III (2016) CPJ-340 (NC) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus Mahesh Aggarwal and others, there was a case of accident of vehicle. The complainant claimed repair charges but claim was repudiated. District Forum dismissed the complaint. State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- including covering of the cost of the repair which was Rs. 14,000/-. Hence the Revision was filed. In Para No. 6 it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that the complainant was not entitled to anything more than the amount which he himself claims to have spent on repair of vehicle alongwith interest on that amount. This citation is fully applicable to the present facts of the case. In the present case the complainant has raised the claim of Rs. 3,36,343/- which has been spent by the complainant. As the insurance company opposite party failed to give any reasons for the deduction of Rs. 63,859/-, therefore it cannot be held that the payment made by the insurance company is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. Perusal of the policy Ex.C-3 does not show any such deductions.
12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against the opposite party No. 2 to the extent that the opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 63,859/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. Opposite party No. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
20th Day of September 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
