Haryana

Ambala

CC/287/2020

Ashok Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

SD Trading Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Sharma

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

Complaint case no.	:	287/2020
Date of Institution	:	27.11.2020
Date of decision	:	18.04.2023

Ashok Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Om Parkash Gupta, resident of House No.780, Sector 9, Ambala, HUDA, Ambala, Haryana.

          ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1. SD TRADING CORPORATION Government Polytechnic College Civil Hospital Road, Ambala City, Haryana.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Tonk Road Sitapur RICCO Industrial Area, EPIP Rajasthan.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                             None for the OP No.1.

                    Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate counsel for OP No.2.

 

 Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of directions to them to pay Rs.1200/- received in excess qua the insurance policy; Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and compensation; Rs.5,000/- as transportation expenses and cost of litigation of Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest.  

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Honda Activa 5G STD B54, bearing engine no JE-50E77339441 (pearl white) on 10/04/2019 from OP No.1. The said vehicle was insured by OP No.2 through OP No.1, vide policy number 10207/31/20/000871, for which OP No.1 received an amount of Rs.6957/-. However, after few months, when the complainant checked the official website of OP No.2 i.e. www.shriramgi.com and downloaded pdf insurance cover note, Annexure C-3, he found that the premium payable was Rs.5,757/-, whereas, on the other hand, an amount of Rs.6957/- was received from him by the OPs i.e. Rs.1200/- in excess was received from him by the OPs. Number of requests were made by him to the OPs to refund the said excess amount but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant approached OP No.1 and purchased the same vehicle, which was duly insured by O.P. No.2 on receipt of premium amount of Rs.5,757/-. Original copy of the insurance cover was handed over to the complainant and carbon copy was retained by O.P. No.1. Insurance of the vehicle covered for 5 years from the date of purchase. The complainant has concocted false story in the Para No. 6 of the complaint as vehicle was insured for Rs.5757/- . Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable against OP No.2 as the entire allegations have been leveled against OP No.1 only etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.2 received Rs.5,757/- from the OP No.1 against the issuance of the policy in question. Thereafter, OP No.2 confirmed all the details of the policy including premium bifurcations i.e. Basic TP premium Rs.3285/-, PA cover for owner cum driver Rs.315/-, OD premium Rs.1279/- with CGST & SGST @9% Rs.439/- each which total Rs.5,757/- and approved the same. The above details of premium were filled and posted by OP No.1 and there was no mistake in any details or calculation in the policy which was submitted with OP No.2 for approval. The alleged amount of Rs.6957/- is no where reflected in any of the paper posted by OP No.1 to OP No.2. Mistake appears to be on behalf of OP No.1 in calculation and making total. Thus, it is a manipulation on the part of the complainant or OP No.1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1 alongwith documents as Annexure C-2 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, when despite giving number of opportunities, OP No.1 failed to tender evidence, the same was closed vide order dated 23.02.2023. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Santosh Kumar, Authorized Signatory, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. as Annexure OP2/A alongwith document Annexure OP No.2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1 on the date of arguments, thereafter, we have heard the learned counsel for OP No.2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that there is no fault on the part of OP No.2, as it has obtained only an amount of Rs.5,757/- inclusive  of taxes, yet, if OP No.1 had obtained any excess amount from the complainant under the garb of OP No.2, then OP No.1 only needs to be penalized and not OP No.2. 
8.           From the perusal of cover note, Annexure C-8, it is evident that the complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs.5,757/- for insurance in question qua the vehicle. This fact has been corroborated by the OPs No.1 and 2 in their respective written version. Whereas, it has been proved on record by way of Annexure C-7 (insurance cover note) that an amount of Rs.6957/- stood received from the complainant for insurance in question qua the vehicle purchased by him. Meaning thereby, complainant has been over charged for an amount of Rs.1200/- (Rs.6957/- minus Rs.5,757/-). It may be stated here that neither OP No.1 nor OP No.2 is ready to take responsibility of overcharging of Rs.1200/- from the complainant. From the bare perusal of certificate-cum-policy schedule Annexure C-7, it is apparent that the policy was issued by insurance company, which is duly stamped and signed by the OP No.1.  Thus, it can easily be said that the OP No.1 & 2 jointly and severally can be held liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.1200/- charged from the complainant. We are of the firm view that in case an amount of Rs.5000/- in lump sum is awarded against the OPs No.1 & 2 and in favour of the complainant, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet. 
9.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands partly allowed and OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 18.04.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President