BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.515 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 29.10.2019

      Date of Decision: 12.05.2023

Gagandeep Singh S/o Santokh Singh R/o H. No.1/129, Near Shiv Mandir, Ravi Dass Nagar Maqsoodan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Aakriti World Service Dealer Chevlot, Ground Floor Vasal      Tower Police Lines, Opposite President Hotel, Jalandhar, Punjab,        Through its Manager.

2.       United India Insurance Company Ltd. 19, G. T. Road, Jalandhar       Through its Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one General Insurance for his car bearing no.PB11-BP-3940 Chevrolet Beat from OP No.2 on 26/11/2017 valid up to 25/11/2018 and this is zero deprecation policy with cashless. (vide policy no.2005003117P112211284 and amount Rs 11,389). The car of complainant met with an accident on 15/07/2018 at Chandigarh and on 19/07/2018 complainant came to the OP No.1 i.e. service centre of Chevrolet car. The complainant has submitted his car to the service centre with the copy of insurance and R.C for necessary repairs then OP No.1 call the OP No.2 for survey moreover OP No.1 has emailed the estimate of Rs.16,800/- to OP No.2. The representative of OP No.2 Mr. Rattan Lal has visited the service centre and took the photographs of vehicle and told that he will make a phone call after 15 minutes about confirmation of claim. Mr. Rattan Lal representative of OP No.2 has made a phone call to OP No.1 and approved the claim of complainant and same thing has been mentioned on Job Sheet by OP No.1. On 24/07/2018, OP No.1 made a call to complainant that vehicle was ready and demanded Rs.9972/-, then complainant replied OP No.1 that this was a cashless policy. The OP No.1 has said that OP No.2 refused to gave cashless facility so pay in cash. Then complainant on 24/07/2018 emailed the same matter to the OP No.2 but no reply was given then again on 25/07/2018, 26/07/2019 and 27/07/2019 emailed the same matter no reply was given. Then complainant went to office of OP No.2 about the matter then representative of OP No.2 took the account details from complainant and assured that his claim is debited to his account and advised to pay to the OP No.1 in cash. At last on 28.07.2018 complainant paid the amount of rs.9972/- and took his vehicle back because he has no other option. Now on 13.08.2018 the complainant got shocked that only Rs.5129/- has been debited in this account not whole claim. Then again complainant visited to the office of the OP No.2 number of times but he delayed the matter on one pretext or other and always demanded time for rest amount payment. After long delay of time by OP No.2 the complainant has no other option only to come before this Commission. The OPs has committed great negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice with the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to recover an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith rest claim amount of Rs.4843/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action against the answering OP. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The true facts are that the vehicle came with the answering OP for its service as the vehicle was damaged on 19.07.2018. Invoice of Rs.9972/- was raised and the answering OP got the amount. The vehicle was given to the complainant after receiving the charges. There is no deficiency whatsoever on the part of the answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle came with the answering OP for its service as the vehicle was damaged, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP, in view of the fact that immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant Sh. Rattan Lal, Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle, who vide his survey report dated 24.07.2018, has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.5126/-. Vide letter dated 01.08.2018, written by the surveyor to the complainant, the complainant was called upon to submit the ECS details for crediting the amount of insurance claim directly to the account of the complainant. Further, vide letter dated 03.08.2018 written to the complainant by the answering OP, the complainant was again called upon to submit the ECS details for reimbursement of claim. Accordingly, on the receipt of ECS details i.e. Cancelled cheque from the complainant, the amount of insurance claim amounting to Rs.5126/- was credited to the account of the complainant. It is further averred that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on the part of the answering OP and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP. On merits, the factum with regard to insurance of the vehicle by the OP and issuance of policy of insurance by the answering OP is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle met with an accident and the Surveyor was appointed who visited the service centre and took the photographs of the vehicle, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the OPs only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant since last so many dates and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has proved that he has purchased general insurance for his car bearing no.PB11-BP-3940 on 26.11.2017. The same has been proved as Ex.C-1. Ex.C-1 shows that the same was valid from 26.11.2017 to 25.11.2018. This insurance cover is included with the private car package policy schedule. The complainant has alleged that his car met with an accident on 15.07.2018 at Chandigarh and the same was sent to the OP No.1 i.e. Service Centre of Chevrolet Car. The OP No.1 has admitted that the vehicle was sent to their showroom and the same was repaired by the OP No.1. After the repair of the car, the car was handed over to the complainant. The complainant has proved on record the copy of intimation given by the OP No.1 to OP No.2 regarding the claim and policy number and accident Ex.C-2. This fact is admitted by the OP No.2 that the Surveyor was appointed who visited the service centre and took the photographs of the vehicle. As per Ex.C3, the OP No.1 has given a note that Surveyor Mr. Rattan Lal has given approval on phone for repair of the vehicle. The complainant has proved the bill i.e. invoice issued by the OP No.1 Ex.C-5, which shows the amount for repair of the vehicle as Rs.9972/-. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 has told the complainant that the OP No.2 has refused to give cashless facility. Therefore, he demanded the amount of Rs.9972/- in cash which was paid by the complainant. The complainant emailed about this matter to the OP No.2 on 24.07.2018, 25.07.2018, 26.07.2019 and 27.07.2019. The complainant has proved these emails Ex.C-4. In all these emails, he has categorically written to the OPs that due to non-payment by the OP No.2, his car is still in service centre. The payment is not being made by the OP No.2 despite the fact that the pictures were clicked by their Surveyor, but as per the allegations of the complainant, no reply was given by the OP No.2 rather the representative of OP No.2 took the account details from the complainant and assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.9972/- will be deposited, but on 13.08.2018 the OP No.2 deposited Rs.5129/-. Now the grudge of the complainant is that despite the approval given by the OP No.2 for Rs.9972/-, the amount of Rs.5129/- was credited in the account of the complainant.

8.                This fact is proved that the amount of Rs.5129/- was deposited. The contention of the complainant is that on 28.07.2018, the complainant made the payment of Rs.9972/- when no payment was made by the OP No.2 despite obtaining the account number from the complainant. The OP No.2 proved the letters Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3, which were written to the complainant to furnish the ECS details. These letters are dated 01.08.2018 and 03.08.2018. As per report of Surveyor dated 31.07.2018, the loss was assessed for Rs.5126/-. As per Ex.OP2/1 i.e. the report of the surveyor, the total loss of Rs.5126/- was assessed and as per the remarks given, the amount for the old damages as mentioned in pre-risk inspection report was deducted from the total amount of invoice given by the OP No.1. The complainant has not come present to assist the Commission regarding the old damages as mentioned in the report of surveyor Ex.OP2/1. The complainant has not come present in the Commission to show the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2 as the amount of Rs.5126/- has already been credited in the account of the complainant. The delay, if any, in depositing the amount was on the part of the complainant as he did not provide the account details. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is without merits, and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

12.05.2023         Member                          Member           President