First Appeal No. 120 of 2016. Case: Sukhpal Jit Singh Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 120 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate and For Respondents: Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate
JudgesGurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J)) and Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
IssueConsumer Law
Judgement DateJanuary 06, 2017
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Gurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J)), (Chandigarh)

  1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 63 dated 7.8.2015 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.

  2. Complaint was filed by complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that he is a registered owner of car model Hyundai I20 sportz, Engine No. D4FCCU149342, Chassis No. MALBB51RLCM443176, was got insured with Op No. 1 vide policy No. 36110031140300002398 for the period from 31.7.2014 to 30.7.2015 on payment of premium of Rs. 11,501/-. On 5.5.2015, the said car of the complainant met with an accident and it was damaged and with prior information to Op No. 1, the complainant got toed it from the spot to Guru Nanak Maruti Service Station also known as Nanaksar Automobiles, GT Road, Moga for its repair. The vehicle was insured from bumper to bumper and it was assured to the complainant that not even a single penny will be charged from the insured. A sum of Rs. 1,12,328/- was spent for its repair, which included Rs. 97,328/- for spare parts and Rs. 15,000/- as repair charges. The claim was lodged with Op No. 1 but Op No. 1 refused to reimburse/pay the repair charges to Guru Nanak Maruti Service Centre, Moga by raising false and frivolous objections with regard to claim of NCB. However, despite request and representation made by the complainant to Ops, Ops failed to make the payment then legal notice dated 15.7.2015 was issued to Ops but Ops failed to make the payment, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Accordingly, complaint was filed against Ops seeking directions against them to pay repair charges of Rs. 1,12,328/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation or any other relief as the Forum may deem fit.

  3. Complaint was contested by Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 27.7.2015 on the ground that the complainant had suppressed the material facts from the Ops while purchasing the policy. The complainant had suppressed the fact regarding NCB (No Claim Bonus) as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT