Haryana

Sonipat

95/2014

SMT SOMA DEVI W/O DHANPAT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. VOLKSWAGEN ROHTAK,2. BAJAJ ALLIAZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN RANGA

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.95 of 2014

                                Instituted on:09.04.2014

                                Date of order:16.09.2015

 

Smt. Soma Devi wife of Dhanpat Singh, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Raghbir pura, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.Volkswagen Rohtak, Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., near CSD Canteen, Sonepat road, Distt. Rohtak through its Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at GE Plaza, Airport road, Yerwada, Pune 411006 service to be effected through local branch office at 2^nd Floor, Pawan Mega Mall, Subhash Chowk, Atlas road, Sonepat.

                                            ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Shri Naveen Ranga Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Amit Dahiya, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Shri Joginder Kuhar Adv. for respondent no.2.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

     SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          D.V.RATHI……………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging herself to be the registered owner of Car bearing no.HR11-E/5040 and unfortunately in the month of July, 2013 the said car met with an accident. The matter was reported to the police, who registered formal report no.75/2013 dated 19.7.2013.  The complainant informed the respondent no.2 regarding the accident, who asked the complainant to shift the vehicle at the workshop of respondent no.1, which the complainant did.   But on 8.8.2013 the respondent no.1 informed the complainant that the damaged car has not been repaired. After a week when the complainant approached the respondent no.1, she was asked to wait for another seven days. However, on 24.8.2013 the respondent no.1 informed the complainant that the vehicle has been repaired.  The complainant was shocked to know that some parts of the vehicle were changed without any damage to raise the estimation cost of repair.   The respondent no.1 refused to hand over the complete salvage parts of the vehicle. The complainant has paid Rs.64137/- to the respondents for getting the delivery of her vehicle. This wrongful act of the respondent no.1 has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.1  has only charged the repair charges as per repair invoice and the matter of payment of depreciation charges is interse between the complainant and respondent no.2.  The estimated cost of repair was Rs.206899/- and actual invoice of repairs was Rs.208258/-. The respondent no.1 has received only the invoice amount from the complainant minus the amount paid by the respondent no.2 i.e. Rs.64100/- on account of depreciation of plastic parts, metal parts and excess clause etc. The complainant herself has not collected the salvage on the day of delivery of repaired vehicle and hence the complainant vide letter dated 6.9.2013 was asked to collect the salvage but she did not come. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.2 has already  paid the amount to the respondent no.1 as per surveyor assessment. If there is any dispute between the complainant and respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 has no concern with the same. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony and harassment at the hands of the respondent no.2 and so, she is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of  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.  We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the respondent no.1 very carefully and minutely.

4.        In the present case, during the course of arguments, the ld. Complainant’s counsel has placed on record that Rs.142703/- were approved.  As per document Ex.C5, Sheet 2, the complainant has paid Rs.64137/- to the complainant.    In this document, it is mentioned that Rs.13026/- not covered and Rs.2738/- as labour charges were depreciated.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that no reason regarding deduction of Rs.13026/- and Rs.2738/- has been given by the surveyor. 

          We have perused the insurance cover note Annexure C very carefully.  In this document, in the column of Payment Details, Name of Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd. is mentioned.  Meaning thereby, there was collaboration in between the respondent no.1 Badhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd. and respondent no.2 Bajaj Alianz Gen. Ins. Ltd.  So, in our view, the respondent no.1 has wrongly and illegally deducted approximately Rs.15,000/- (Rs.13026 plus Rs.2738/-) and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  It is the respondent no.1 who is liable to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.15000/- (Rs.fifteen thousand) for rendering deficient services, further to pay Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and also to pay Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands respondent no.1.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 16.09.2015