Haryana

Sonipat

CC/53/2015

PAWAN KUMAR S/O JASWANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MAGMA INSURANCE CO.,2. KRISHNA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN NAGAR

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.53 of 2015

                                Date of Instt. 23.02.2015 

                                Date of order: 04.04.2016

 

 

Pawan Kumar son of Jaswant Singh, r/o village Safiyabad, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.Magma Insurance Co. Laxman Market, Sector 3, Near Grain Market, Karnal through its Manager.

2.M/s Krishna Motors (authorized Maruti Service Station) through its Manager, Rohtak road, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Sh. Parveen Nagar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Sukhdeep Sansanwal, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of vehicle no. HR-10P-0202 which was insured with the respondent no.1 for Rs.170000/-.  Unfortunately the said vehicle has met with an accident on 21/22-1-2014 and was badly damaged.  The surveyor was appointed by the respondent no.1 who has assessed the loss and damages to the tune of Rs.232194/-, hence the respondent no.1 was liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-.  But the respondent no.1 has disbursed only Rs.57000/- in place of Rs.1,70,000/-. The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 to disburse the remaining claim amount, but this request has not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and this has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they have filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted in its written statement that Omvir Singh surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to assess the loss of the vehicle no.HR10P-0202. The said surveyor has conducted the surveyor and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.57000/- and the said amount was directly paid to the complainant in full and final discharged/settlement of the entire claim of the complainant, to which the complainant has not objected to and has accepted the said amount voluntarily towards full and final settlement of his claim without any protest.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant himself has approached the respondent no.2 for repair of his vehicle as per his instructions.  The respondent no.2 has repaired the damaged car and bill of Rs.1,32,000/- was given to the complainant by the respondent no.2 and only by giving a sum of Rs.62000/- to the respondent no.2, the vehicle was given to the complainant on the guarantee of one Ramniwas Bangar, but unfortunately he has expired and after his death, the complainant has become dishonest and is not making the payment of remaining amount of repair to the respondent no.2. Now the respondent no.2 has come to know that the complainant has sold the vehicle which was repaired by the respondent no.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

 

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the surveyor of the respondent no.1 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.232194/ and thus, the respondent no.1 was liable to make the payment of Rs.170000/-, whereas the respondent no.1 has disbursed only Rs.57000/- to the complainant in place of Rs.1,70,000/- and thus, he has prayed to direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.1,13,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that Omvir Singh surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to assess the loss of the vehicle no.HR10P-0202. The said surveyor has conducted the surveyor and has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.57000/- and the said amount was directly paid to the complainant in full and final discharged/settlement of the entire claim of the complainant, to which the complainant has not objected to and has accepted the said amount voluntarily towards full and final settlement of his claim without any protest.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  The complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental agony at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

 

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant himself has approached the respondent no.2 for repair of his vehicle as per his instructions.  The respondent no.2 has repaired the damaged car and bill of Rs.1,32,000/- was given to the complainant by the respondent no.2 and only by giving a sum of Rs.62000/- to the respondent no.2, the vehicle was given to the complainant on the guarantee of one Ramniwas Bangar, but unfortunately he has expired and after his death, the complainant has become dishonest and is not making the payment of remaining amount of repair to the respondent no.2. Now the respondent no.2 has come to know that the complainant has sold the vehicle which was repaired by the respondent no.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of

the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

 

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief or not?

 

          During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record some writing dated 31.3.2016 issued by Krishna Motors(respondent no.2) that the vehicle no.HR10P-0202 was got repaired by Pawan Kumar form their authorized service station and total amount of repair comes to Rs.1,33,481/- and the same has been received by Krishna Motors from the complainant and now nothing is due towards the complainant Pawan Kumar.

 

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has received Rs.57000/- from the respondent no.1. He has paid Rs.1,33,481/- to the repairer Krishna Motors.

          The bare perusal of the bills placed on record by the complainant i.e. Mark B to K shows that the estimated amount of repair was Rs.2,59,190/-, but in the complaint, it has been mentioned as Rs.2,32,194/-.

          As per the respondent no.1, the complainant has issued the satisfactory discharged voucher after receiving the payment.  But the respondent no.1 has failed to place on record any document which may go to prove that the satisfactory discharged voucher was ever issued by the complainant in favour of the respondent no.1.  So, this plea of the respondent no.1 is not tenable in the eyes of law.

          The respondent no.1 has placed on record the surveyor report Ex.R2.  In this report, the estimated amount of repair i.e. Rs.232194/- or Rs.259190/- has not been mentioned anywhere by the surveyor.  Only the detail of parts which were replaced has been mentioned after final survey by the surveyor.  So, somehow it creates doubt in the mind of this Forum, because without mentioning the estimated amount of repair in the report, the surveyor report has little evidentiary value.  Whereas it was the duty of the surveyor to mention the estimated amount of repair in his report.  Moreover, the re-inspection report has not been placed on record by the respondent no.1.  In our view, the estimated amount either Rs.232914/- or Rs.259190/- cannot be granted to the complainant since the vehicle has already been got repaired by the complainant from respondent no.2.  So, in our view, the complainant is only entitled to get the remaining amount of Rs.76481/- (Rs.133481 – 57000=76481/-) from the respondent no.1. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.76481/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  04.04.2016