Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/233/2023

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

RANJU BHATIA WIFE OF SH. VINAY BHATIA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA ADV.

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

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

Appeal No	:	A/233/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	19/09/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	06/10/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

through its Authorized and duly constituted person/ attorney Sh. Saurav Khullar, Deputy Manager (Legal), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 157-158-159, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…. Appellant

V E R S U S

 

1.   Ranju Bhatia wife of Sh. Vinay Bhatia, Resident of House No.90, Sector 11, Panchkula.

 

2.   M/s Amar Electronic Plaza, SCO 22, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Partner/Proprietor.

 

3.   M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noia-201310 (Udyog Vihar), through its Managing Director.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Ambuj Shukla, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the Appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.08.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/372/2020, in the following terms:-

“15. For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.3, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed:-

[a]  To refund a sum of Rs.4248/- to the Complainant being amount spent by her on the repair and replacement of the defective parts of the LED T.V. in question during the currency of the extended warranty.

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to her.

[c]  To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.  The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.3; thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till the same are paid, apart from compliance of directions contained in sub-para [c] above.”

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.
3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that she purchased one L.G LED T.V. from Opposite Party No.1 (M/s Amar Electronic Plaza) for a sum of ₹37,500/- vide retail invoice dated 03.11.2015. The said LED T.V. carried two years manufacturer warranty as per warranty card Annexure C-2. Additionally, she also purchased extended warranty of three years from Opposite Party No.3 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.), which was over & above the warranty issued by the manufacturer from the date of purchase. During the currency of the warranty, on 09.08.2020, the LED stopped working, which defect was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 sent their Service Engineer who after inspection informed that a part costing around ₹4,000/- to ₹4,500/- needed to be changed and advised the Complainant to avail the benefit of extended warranty from Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, vide e-mail dated 11.08.2020 the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and submitted all the desired documents. In response whereof, Opposite Party No.3 refused to admit the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the extended warranty had expired and directed her to get the policy corrected from Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.3 to review her request, supported by requisite documents, since the extended warranty was to expire on 02.11.2020. Eventually, when nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got the LED repaired on 24.08.2020 from Opposite Party No.2 by spending an amount of ₹4248/-. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged her claim with the Opposite Party No.3 to release the aforesaid amount, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

4.      Upon notice, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 resisted the consumer complaint pleading that the problem in the LED had arisen after almost five years of its purchase. The primary grievance of the Complainant was against Opposite Party No.3 (from whom the Complainant purchased three years extended warranty other than the two years warranty given by the Opposite Party No.2) who failed to resolve the grievance of the Complainant. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      Opposite Party No.3 filed its reply admitting the fact that apart from two years manufacturer’s warranty, the Complainant had also purchased an extended warranty of three years from it vide extended warranty card Annexure OP-3/1. When the Complainant reported her concern on 11.08.2020, she was promptly informed that her extended warranty had expired. However, on 12.08.2020, when the Complainant requested to explain the period of insurance, she was asked to drop a mail for policy correction, which she never did.  On these lines, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Complainant/Respondent No.1, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

7.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.
8.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

9.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

10.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

11.      It is the case of the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.3 that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.3 vociferously argued that the Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the Consumer Complaint ignored the fact that the loss/damage caused to the TV set of the Complainant occurred on 09.08.2020 which fell outside the policy period of the extended warranty which was valid from 02.11.2016 to 02.11.2019 and the Appellant was not liable to entertain any claim beyond the terms of the policy. However, per material available on record, we do not find any substance in this limb of argument, for the simple reason that there are material incongruities in the submissions made and the documents relied upon, which has aptly been noticed by the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the order impugned herein. The Warranty Card - Annexure C-3 issued by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 specified the manufacturer’s product warranty period as two years from the date of invoice i.e. 03.11.2015 to 02.11.2017. However, in Annexure OP-3/1 placed on record by Appellant/Opposite Party No.3, though the period of extended warranty was mentioned as three years, but the manufacturer’s product warranty period was written as one year. Apart from this, the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.3 in its pleadings have admitted that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 also purchased an extended warranty of three years from it. Noticing the aforesaid factual position, the Ld. Lower Commission rightly held that the manufacturer’s warranty of two years was to expire on 02.11.2017 and thereafter, the extended warranty of three years provided by Opposite Party No.3 comes into picture which was to expire on 02.11.2020 and as such, Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 was bound to honour the extended warranty for the repair and replacement of the defective parts of the LED TV in question which got defective on 09.08.2020 i.e. within the extended warranty period. Record also shows, in response to the e-mail communications of the Respondent No.1/Complainant Annexures C-4 & C-5, Appellant/ Opposite Party No.3 with a view to wriggle out of their liability vide e-mail dated 12.08.2020 - Annexure C-6 advised her to drop a mail for policy correction, which shows that Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 was well aware that a wrong policy had been issued to the Respondent No.1/Complainant and instead of correcting their mistake, they purposely for the reasons best known to them desired the Respondent No.1/ Complainant to drop a mail for policy correction, which per se tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Thus, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held the Respondent No.1/Complainant to be fully entitled for the repair charges, along with compensation and cost of litigation.  In this view of the matter, no case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine with cost which we quantify as ₹2500/-. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

06^th Oct., 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”