Date of filing:- 11/07/2016.
Date of Order:-20/04/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 24 of 2016.
Suchitra Behera, aged about W/o. Lalit Kumar Behera, R/o. Lehunipadar. P.o. Bhadigoan, P.s. Bhatli, District. Bargarh. ..... ..... .... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
The Authorised Person of Renault, Sambalpur, an unit of Gargson Automobiles Pvt Ltd, At. Plot No.835/3754, Remed Sambalpur Town, Unit-12, Dist. Sambalpur-768001.
The Authorised Person of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. One Janpath 3rd Floor 2C Janpath Sriya Square Kharbelnagar, Unit. 111, Bhubaneswar-751001 ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K. Pati, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.20/04/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case :-
The Complainant purchased a car (Renault Duster Car ) vide Regd No. OD-17-F- 2222, Chesis No. MEEH SRAW5F 3086166, Engine No. E009651 and got it insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vide Policy No.OG16-2403-1801-00002875 with Customer I.D.No.68566242, And that during the subsistence of the insurance coverage period the vehicle met with an accident sustaining damage, for which on the advice of the Opposite Party No. 2(two) took it to the Repairing Centre of Gargson Automobiles PVT Ltd Sambalpur for it’s repair .
In furtherance to his case after the said repair of his said vehicle, the repairing centre presented a bill worth of Rs.3,32,485/-(Rupees three lakh thirty two thousand four hundred eighty five)only towards the cost of repair and it’s parts. But his specific case is that against such billing amount of the said repair the Opposite Party No.2(two) paid only an amount of Rs.2,91,282/-(Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand two hundred eighty two)only to the Opposite Party No.1(one), but the Opposite Party No.1(one) demanded the rest amount of Rs.44,300/-(Rupees forty four thousand three hundred)only from him and being helpless he paid the same to get release of his vehicle, thus as per him such action of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiencies of service for which he suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially hence the cause of action for filing the case before the Forum claiming the said deficit amount along with Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only towards compensation for his said sufferings, And to substantiate his case has relied upon the following documents .
Xerox Copy of Registration Certificate of The vehicle.
Xerox Copy of Certificate of Insurance .
Invoice Bill Garson Automobiles Pvt ltd.
Xerox Copy of Money receipt.
Letter issued by Bajaj Allianz general Insurance and garson Automobiles Pvt Ltd.
Having gone through the complaint and the relevant documents filed by the Complainant and heard the advocate for him, the case was admitted and notice for appearance of the Opposite Parties was issued and in response to the same the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their individual version along with their supporting documents to substantiate their case .
So far as the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) it has been admitted that the said vehicle was brought to him and on the observation and test of the vehicle by it’s technical staffs an estimated cost was prepared for an amount of Rs. 3,32,487/-(Rupees three lakh thirty two thousand four hundred eighty seven)only and repair work was done immediately thereafter which is filed by him vide annexure A and annexure B , and time to time on inspection of the Complainant the repair work was conducted and at the end of the same after test drive final invoice of the bill amounting to Rs. 3,32,467 /-(Rupees three lakh thirty two thousand four hundred sixty seven)only was presented to him and in addition to that on his request the car was polished costing an amount of Rs.3,095/-(Rupees three thousand ninety five)only vide Annexure C, But the Opposite Party No.2(two) settled the claim with an amount of Rs. 2,91,282/-(Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand two hundred eighty two)only plus the amount of Rs.3,095/-(Rupees three thousand ninety five)only so he demanded for the rest amount from the Complainant and he paid it to him. He has further contended that the Insurance Company are guided by certain agreed terms and condition in their policy bond with the customer as such has to deduct the depreciation cost of the repair and has justified in making payments as per their term and condition with the Complainant and hence he is supposed to pay the rest amount beyond the sanctioned amount by the Insurance Company and also he is not a party to any act for the same and hence claim that the case is not maintainable against him.
And so far the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two), it has admitted the case of the Complainant to the extent of the ownership , the accident caused to the vehicle and the repair work of the same but has denied to be deficient in giving service to the Complainant by giving the amount of Rs. 2,91,282/-(Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand two hundred eighty two)only as full and final amount of settlement with a plea that the insurance policy is guided by certain agreed terms and condition of the policy at the time of commencement of the same with the insured and as such has settled the claim after inspection and verification of the damaged vehicle by their authorized surveyor, And accordingly immediately after getting information have deputed their surveyor and on the basis of his report they have settled the Amount of Rs. 2,91,282/-(Rupees two lakh ninety one thousand two hundred eighty two)only in favor of the Complainant after due deduction of the depreciation cost of the vehicle as per the agreed terms and condition of the policy, hence has denied to have deficient in giving the service to the Complainant and as such have claimed the Complainant is esstopped from further claim. And in support of their such case have filed the required documents as follows.
1. An Affidavit sworn in by the surveyor on Dt.9.02.2018.
2. The survey report of the surveyor .
Delving deep in to the matter with relation to the case and it’s relating documents filed by the respective parties and keeping in view the arguments advanced by their respective Counsels, some points of determination have cropped up before us to properly adjudicate the case .
Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the Claim as has been sought for by him ?
While dealing with the points as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving service to the Complainant it came to our observation that the Opposite Party No.1 (one)has reported the Car in question to the satisfaction of the Complainant but the only question left was regarding the payments of the billing amount in excess of the settled amount by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for which the Complainant had to pay the deficit amount an amount of Rs.44,300/-(Rupees forty four thousand three hundred)only to the garage concerned, but in course of the entire episode of it’s dealing with the service of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in repairing, we don’t find any deficiencies in giving service to him and in addition to that the Complainant has also got no specific allegation against him as such we are of the view that he is in no way concerned with the case and as such is not maintainable against him.
But while dealing with the part of the action ought to have been taken by the Opposite Party No.2(two) being the Insurance Company to indemnify the loss caused to the Complainant for the damage caused to his vehicle concerned due to the accident and the amount paid by the Opposite Party No.2(two) against the same it reveals from the materials available in the record and also pointed out by the Advocate concerned that the survey report and an affidavit filed on his behalf is a manufactured one as the same has been filed very much long after filing the version by the Opposite Party No.2(two), On Dt. 09.02.2018 and in as much as without any endorsement of the Complainant, which to our observation also creates a doubt in the mind of the Complainant and the Forum too, as the Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the same has been prepared without visiting the vehicle and the repairing garage and in addition to that the Complainant has also filed an affidavit to that effect, hence in our view as the same report of the surveyor has been filed before the forum after such a long gap and without the knowledge of the Complainant, is not tenable in the eye of law hence is not acceptable and in our view such action of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is an act of callousness towards the case of the Complainant which amounts to deficiencies of service on his part as such it is answered in favor of the Complainant,
Secondly with regard to the entitlement of the claim of the Complainant , as we have already discussed in details of the case from all corner of facts and law it is obvious upon to accept the total amount of the repair amount placed by the garage concerned and as such in our view the Complainant is entitled to the claim amount as hereunder mentioned in our following order.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Party No. 2(two) is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 44,300/-(Rupees forty four thousand three hundred) with interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of the order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) to the Complainant towards compensation for his mental physical and financial harassment, in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the same is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e .on Dt.20.04.2018, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the Opposite Party No.1 is exonerated from any liability from the case, and accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
