BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
R.P.No.49/2013 against I.A.No.126/2013 in C.C.No.363/2013, District Forum-III,Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s. Talwar Hyundai Motors,
(Talwar Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,)
Rep. by General Manager Bheemsain Kulakarni,
Aged about 40 years, Occ:General Manager,
Plot No.207/A, Tadbun Cross Road,
Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ... Revision Petitioner/
Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
And
1.Dr. Smt. D.Marilyn Prabhalatha,
W/o.D.Prabhkar Rao,
Age about 50 years, Occ:Doctor,
R/o.10-3-27/6,
East Marredpally,
Secunderabad. ...Respondent/
Petitioner/
Complainant
2. M/s.Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
III Floor, 6-3-666/B/6,
Gokul Towers, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad – 500 082. ... Respondent/
Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. T.Sunil Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.K.Mohan-R1
Mr.Katta Laxmi Prasad-R2
QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member
***
The Revision Petition is directed against the order dt.18.07.2013 of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad made in I.A.No.126/2013 in C.C.No.363/2013.
The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are as follows:
The respondent no.1/complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. AP10BC9119 HUNDAI 120 purchased on 29.11.2012 and the said car was insured with the opposite party no.1 vide police no.109639. The said car met with an accident, on 07.03.2013 and the car was brought to the workshop of the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 herein. The revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 has given their estimation of repairs for Rs.4,60,594/- and the surveyor of opposite party no.1 assessed their own liability. The revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 herein has carried out the repairs, on the instructions of the complainant and the revision petitioner completed the repairs by 30.5.2013. The total expenditure of the repairs was Rs.2,26,509/-. The opposite party no.1 insurance company has finalised the claim regarding the subject car for Rs.1,33,204/- as full and final settlement of loss, subject to terms and conditions of the policy and subject to submission of certain documents. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 has addressed a letter dt.08.06.2013 to the complainant, informing that the total amount is Rs.2,26,509/- and opposite party no.1 approved a sum of Rs.1,33,204/- and the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 requested the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.93,305/-(which is wrongly mentioned by the complainant in the complaint as Rs.88,989/-) and take delivery of the vehicle and return the stand by car no.688 Santro given to the complainant. The complainant instead of paying the balance amount of Rs.93,305/- to the revision petitioner herein, filed the complaint, before the District Forum-III, Hyderabad and along with the said complaint, the complainant has filed I.A.No.126/2013 praying to direct the opposite party no.1 insurance company to pay the balance amount of Rs.93,305/- to the revision petitioner company, for releasing the vehicle. The revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 filed their counter, before the District Forum opposing the application.
After hearing both sides, the District Forum passed the impugned order directing the petitioner/complainant to pay Rs.22,000/- to the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 herein and on such payment, the opposite party no.1 insurance company is directed to release the amount of Rs.1,33,204/- without insisting for the consent and signature of the petitioner/complainant on the pretext of final settlement of the claim and on such receipt of amounts from the petitioner/complainant and respondent no.1 insurance company, the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 is directed to deliver the vehicle to the petitioner/complainant.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 filed the revision petition urging that the District Forum has failed to see that the revision petitioner has repaired the car by spending their own amount and also failed to see that the main dispute is between the complainant and respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 and that the revision petitioner is straight away losing Rs.71,000/-, without any fault and other charges. That the District Forum failed to see that if the car is released without paying the balance of Rs.93,305/-, the complainant will lose interest in prosecuting the case, simultaneously the respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 also lose interest in the case as the vehicle is already released, resulting in loss to the revision petitioner. That the District Forum on assumption and presumption came to a finding that the authorised repairer will quote and levy the price of the items used for repairs at higher side, which is false and incorrect. The revision petitioner finally prayed to set aside the impugned order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be reviewed and set aside as prayed for by the revision petitioner?
It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1/complainant herein is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. AP10BC9119 HUNDAI 120 and that the complainant got insured the said car, with the opposite party no.1 insurance company, vide policy no.109639. It is also not in dispute that the subject vehicle, met with an accident, on 07.03.2013 and the complainant has sent her damaged vehicle to Hundai Show Room i.e. opposite party no.2, the revision petitioner herein.The revision petitioner/opposite party no.2 completed the repairs and the total expenditure of repairs was Rs.2,26,509/-.The opposite party no.1 insurance company, finalised the claim of the complainant, for Rs.1,33,204/- as full and final settlement of loss subject to the policy terms and conditions and subject to submission of certain documents. The complainant is questioning the finalisation of the claim, by opposite party no.1 for Rs.1,33,204/- as full and final settlement subject to above said conditions.
The complainant filed the Consumer Complaint seeking direction to the opposite party no.1, to pay Rs.2,26,509/- towards total cost of the repairs. As seen from the complaint, no relief is sought for against the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2. Therefore, the dispute is between the complainant and opposite party no.1 insurance company. The complainant is not disputing the fact that opposite party no.2 incurred total expenditure of Rs.2,26,509/- towards repairs of the damaged car. Under the impugned order, the District Forum directed the complainant to pay Rs.22,000/- i.e. 25% of the balance amount of Rs.88,989/-( the correct balance amount is Rs.93,305/-, but not Rs.88,989/-) after deducting Rs.1,33,204/- settled by the opposite party no.1 insurance company, without considering the relief sought for by the complainant against opposite party no.1. The observation of the District Forum ‘it is common knowledge that the authorised repairer will quote and levy price of the items used for repairs at higher side’, appears to be on assumptions and presumptions and not based on any material on record. Further, such observation in interlocutory application is not warranted, whether the estimation given by opposite party no.2 is correct or not, to be decided, at the time of trial of the complaint, on evidence adduced by both the parties. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/opposite party no.2, if the vehicle is delivered to the complainant, at this stage of the proceedings, without making payment of full amount of Rs.2,26,509/-, which was claimed to have been incurred by opposite party no.2 towards total expenditure of repairs, the revision petitioner/opp.party no.2 would be under apprehension whether they would get the amount of Rs.71,000/-, the balance of the amount that was incurred by them towards the repairs of the vehicle.
As seen from the record, the opposite parties filed their written version in the complaint and the complaint has been coming for the affidavit evidence of both the parties and then written arguments and orders. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 gave a stand by car to the complainant for her daily use. Under these circumstances, the District Forum ought to have taken steps for disposal of the complaint, instead of deciding the present petition on merits. We do not think that the repaired vehicle would be damaged within one or two months.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any justification on the part of the District Forum in passing the impugned order and as such the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The petition in I.A.No.126/2013 is dismissed. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible , preferably within a period of two months and both the parties are directed to cooperate with the District Forum in disposal of the complaint within that time. There shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Pm* Dt.05.9.2013
