Delhi

East Delhi

CC/160/2016

MANOJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZEDEX NISSAN - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 160/16

 

Shri Manoj Kumar

S/o Shri Om Prakash

R/o – 2654, Sector – 44C

Chandigarh                                                                  ….Complainant

Vs.     

 

1. M/s. Zedex-Nissan

A Division of Shekhwati Pvt. Ltd.

Through its G.M. Sales Shri Pankaj Verma

Off: 89, FIE Patpaganj

Patpaganj Industrial Area, Delhi – 110 092         

 

2. M/s. Zedex-Nissan

A Division of Shekhwati Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Shri Atul Jain

Off: 89, FIE Patpaganj

Patpaganj Industrial Area, Delhi – 110 092         

 

3. Liberty Videocon general Ins. Co. Ltd.

Through its Director/Manager/AR

Off: Front Block of 2^nd Floor

ALPS Bilding, 56, Janpath

Central Delhi – 110 001                                                              …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.03.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 03.10.2019

Judgement Passed on: 14.10.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Manoj Kumar against           M/s. Zedex-Nissan through (OP-1 & 2) and M/s. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a vehicle Terrano XL(O) diesel having chasis no. MDHHSNAW5F4022028 on 20.07.2015 for an amount of Rs. 11,45,123/- from M/s. Zedex-Nissan (OP-1 & 2) .  On the pursuance of M/s. Zedex – Nissan, the complainant agreed to have insurance policy from them.  OP gave a debit note dated 22.07.2015 to the complainant showing that they have debited Rs. 50,284/- for the insurance charges of total Rs. 57,784/-. 

The complainant received the insurance policy of the vehicle vide no. 2011-200101-15-1005209-00-000 cover note 20000302211 valid w.e.f. 20.07.2015 to 19.07.20167, issued on 25.07.2015.  He was surprised to know that the policy premium amount was Rs. 27,581/- and total value of the vehicle has been shown as Rs. 10,87,867/-.

It was stated that the complainant sent many emails/communications / representations to OPs for refund of the excess amount and received the reply of OPs on 31.10.2015 stating that by mistake there was error in the amount of policy and the complainant should bring the original copy of the policy for replacement of new policy.  The complainant mentioned that he did not want new policy as he had already used the vehicle for about 6-7 months with the old policy, issued by them for Rs. 27,581/- and requested for refund of excess amount, but all in vain.

It was stated that there was no error in the policy for total premium amount of Rs. 27,581/- shown in the policy, issued by OP-3.  All three segments i.e. A+B+C, correctly calculated in the policy cover note by OP-3. 

The complainant sent legal notice dated 02.11.2015, but OPs denied for the genuine claim.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to refund the excess amount of premium of Rs. 22,703/- with 18% interest; compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation charges and appropriate direction to OP-3 to place on record original policy with premium receipt of payment of said policy.      

3.        In reply filed on behalf of OP-1 & 2, they have stated that their customer care department sent a mail to the complainant on 31.08.2015 that the policy was wrongly calculated as Rs. 27,581/- instead of              Rs. 50,284/-.  The complainant had given his consent to replace the policy with new one through his email dated 14.09.2015, but denied to send the relevant documents which were required to issue new policy as intimated to him through email dated 08.10.2015. 

           They have also stated that OP-1&2 already paid the difference amount of Rs. 22,703 to the complainant vide cheque no. 028727 dated 26.11.2015 alongwith reply of legal notice vide DTDC courier receipt          no. Z74071082 dated 28.11.2015.  Other facts have also been denied. 

           The prayer against OP-3 was only with regard to place the original copy of policy.  As OP-3 filed the original policy, they did not file their reply. 

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 & 2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of debit note/receipt of payment (Ex.CW-1/1 and 1/2) and copy of cover note (Ex.CW-1/3). 

           In defence, OP-1&2 have examined Shri Arun Shama, AR of Shekhawati Electronics Pvt. Ltd., who have also deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of email dated 08.10.2015 (Ex.RW-1/1), reply of legal notice with its postal receipts (Ex.RW-1/2 & 1/3) and copy of cheque dated 26.11.2015 (Ex.RW-1/4).   

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and AR of OP-1 & 2 and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of complainant that by committing the error in the policy which have been admitted by OP-1&2 in their reply, there was a clear deficiency on their part. 

           On the other hand, AR appearing for OP-1&2 have stated that they have sent cheque to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 22,703/- in the year 2015 which they did not accept.  To this, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have stated that they have not got cheque encashed.

           From the testimony of the complainant and the admission made by AR of OP-1&2 with regard to the error in calculation, certainly, it amounts to deficiency on the part of OP-1&2.  No doubt, they have remitted the difference amount of Rs. 22,703/- to the complainant, but they have not placed anything on record to show as to when the said cheque have been sent.  Counsel appearing for complainant have stated that they have not got the cheque encashed.  The fact that there was deficiency on the part of M/s. Zedex Nissan (OP-1&2) and as they have sent a cheque for the difference amount of Rs. 22,703/-, the complainant was entitled for the said amount.   By not returning the amount of difference on knowing their mistake, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

           In view of the above, we order that M/s. Shekhawati Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP) shall return the difference amount of Rs. 22,703/- to the complainant.  We also award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain and agony which includes the cost of litigation also.  This order be complied within a period of 60 days.  If not complied, total amount of   Rs. 32,703/- shall carry 6% interest from the date of order till its realization.  No liability can be fastened on M/s. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd (OP-3)

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                        Member 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President