Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7253
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SMT. SUNITA YADAV, CJ, DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, J
RAJNEESH KUMAR JAIN – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
First Appeal No.549 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In person
For the Respondents: Shri S.K.Shakya, Ms.Chitra Sharma
The complainant must provide evidence of damages or a valid claim under the insurance policy to establish a deficiency in service.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Deficiency in service - Zero Depth Insurance Policy - Complainant alleged that the dealer failed to provide the insurance despite charges paid. District Commission awarded compensation of Rs.5,500/- for deficiency; appeal made for enhancements. (Paras 1, 3, 4, and 11)
(B) Evidence and burden of proof - The complainant failed to provide evidence of damages sustained to the vehicle or accident, thus unable to substantiate claims for further relief. The court upheld the District Commission order as no infirmity was found. (Paras 9 and 12) (
Facts of the case:
The complainant obtained Zero Depth Insurance but was denied repairs; issues of service deficiency were raised as the dealer did not honor the policy.
Findings of Court:
The Insurance Company was deemed liable for compensation due to identified deficiency in service per the original order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether proper insurance was provided, and if any damages occurred to justify further claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that without evidence of service or damage, no further relief could be granted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :
This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhindwara (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.61/2020, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by complainant / appellant.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant/ appellant had approached the District Commission stating that he had obtained a Zero Depth Insurance Policy from the opposite party no.2 / respondent no.2 – Shri Krishna Nissan Motors (hereinafter referred to as ‘dealer’) from 10.10.2019 to 10.10.2020. The said benefit is provided to the policy holder for a period of five years only. As per the Zero Depth Insurance, the dealer has to repair the vehicle in the event of any damages occurring to the subject vehicle. The complainant/ appellant alleged that when he approached the dealer for repairs of the damages which were caused to the vehicle, he was informed that since there is no Zero Depth Insurance, the repair work could not be carried out. The complainant/ appellant therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties / respondents, since the Zero Depth Insurance was not provided to him despite the fact that he had paid requisite charges for that purpose.
3. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.1 / respondent no.1 - National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) to pay compensation of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant/ appellant within a period of one month. Hence, this appeal.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. The complainant/ appellant argued that the District Commission has failed to observe that when his vehicle got damaged and he approached the dealer for its repairs but he was informed that there is no such insurance. Since these is no Zero Depth Insurance he will have to pay for repairs of the damages. Therefore, the complainant/ appellant had to approach the District Commission.
6. The opposite parties / respondents had further tried to mislead the District Commission since they created forged signatures of the complainant/ appellant in an application and presented it before the District Commission which is there as ‘D- 5’ in the record. This irregularity has been observed by the District Commission also. He thus argued that the impugned award deserves enhancement since the opposite parties / respondents have committed grave crime and also in view of the fact, that the complainant/ appellant was not provided with Zero Depth Insurance.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the policy was rectified and the same was observed by the District Commission also. There is no evidence which could suggest that the vehicle actually got damaged. No surveyor was appointed in the matter since no OD claim was filed. The complainant/ appellant has alleged that his vehicle sustained damages as an animal hit the vehicle, but no evidence regarding the same has been produced by the complainant/ appellant. There is no estimate regarding damages which were sustained by the subject vehicle. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the dealer argued that there is no privity of contract between the complainant/ appellant and the dealer. Whenever the complainant/ appellant approached the dealer for the purpose of repairs, the vehicle was repaired. Free servicing during the warranty period has been provided to the complainant/ appellant. On 08.09.2016 the bumper of the vehicle got damaged and same was repaired. Later, on 27.01.2017 the bumper was repaired yet again. The complainant/ appellant also obtained claim amount from the Insurance Company regarding the accident which happened on 29.03.2017. Thereafter the vehicle was repaired on 01.05.2017 and 01.08.2017 also. Therefore, there has been no
