BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NUH.

                                                                               Consumer complaint No.02

                                                                               Date of Institution: 13.01.2016

                                                                                Date of Order: 31.01.2017

Tahir Hussain son of Shri Kamaluddin, resident of Village Malab, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat.

         ….Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411006 (through its Divisional Manager).

        …. Opposite party.

    Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE     Mr.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President.

Mrs.Urmil Beniwal, Member.

Mrs.Keeran Bala, Member.

Present:      Mr.Ajay Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

                  Mr.Sandeep Mittal, Advocate for the opposite party.

ORDER       R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                   Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of MARUTI ALTO 800 bearing Regn.No.-HR-27-D-9159 having Engine No.F8DN5014155 and Chasis No.MA3EUA61S00228697. On 03.07.2013, the complainant purchased the said vehicle from Lukman son of Rehman after making the payment.  The aforesaid vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide policy number OG-14-1102-1801-00001704 commencing w.e.f. 27.04.2013 to 26.04.2014. On 04.01.2014, when his father Shri Kamaluddin was going to Nuh for his personal work, the said vehicle met with an accident and got damaged while saving the Neel Cow.  The matter was reported to the police of Police Station, Nuh on the same day but the police registered the case on 06.01.2014 vide NCR No.8/2014 u/s 427 IPC.  The complainant got repaired the aforesaid vehicle from M/s Javed Motors, near Balaji Petrol Pump, Delhi Alwar Road, Nuh District Mewat  by spending a sum of Rs.1,58,552/- and Rs.10,000/- as misc. charges.  Accordingly he approached the opposite party for getting the claim amount which was refused wrongly and illegally.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                It is also pleaded that the complainant firstly agitated the matter before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Nuh  vide case No.1567 dated 14.08.2015 but the said case was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.11.2015 with a liberty to file a fresh case before the Civil Courts/Consumer Forum.  So the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum and by way of this complaint, he has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,68,542/- to him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till realization of claim amount alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/-  and legal expenses of Rs.22,000/- has also been prayed for.

3.                On notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed written reply agitating that the complaint is false, frivolous and is not maintainable.  The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Forum.   It is further pleaded that complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided in summary trial without elaborate evidence, examination and cross examination of witnesses. It is also contended that the bills produced by the complainant are false and fabricated as the Javed Motors is not the authorized service centre of the opposite party-Company.  It is stated that the complainant has not submitted all documents to the opposite party.   The complainant did not give any opportunity to the surveyor of the answering opposite party to inspect the damaged vehicle on the spot rather he has lodged the FIR directly.  It is alleged that the photographs of the vehicle of pre inspection are different from the photographs of vehicle which met with the alleged accident.  The opposite party sent many letters to the complainant for clarification of the said fact but he did not give any response till today.  It is also pleaded that at the time of pre-inspection report the speedometer reading of the insured vehicle was 13538 KMs on 20.12.2013 and after accident when the surveyor went for assessing the loss; the speedometer reading was the same i.e. 13538 KMs.  Further submitted that at the time of pre-inspection the dickey and rear bumper was pressed but it is surprising that after the accident no damage on dickey and rear bumper of the vehicle was seen.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Dismissal of the complaint with cost has been prayed for.

4.                In evidence the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC mark-C1, copy of fee receipt mark-C2, Certificate of insurance mark-C3, copy of FIR mark-C4, copy of final survey report mark-C5, copy of Cash Memo mark-C6 and copy of order dated 20.11.2015 mark-C7 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, opposite party has produced the affidavit of Dushyant Kumar Meena, Senior Executive which marked as Ex.R-1, copy of private car package policy Ex.R-2, copy of private car package policy schedule   Ex.R-3, copies of inspection report Ex.R-4 & R-14, copy of application Ex.R-5, copy of final survey report Ex.R-6, copy of parts report Ex.R-7, copy of photographs Ex.R-8 to Ex.R-13 and copy of final survey and pre inspection photo Ex.R-15 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the records placed on file.  The main objection raised by the opposite party is that the complainant had produced a different vehicle at the time of pre inspection than the vehicle in question and further the opposite party raised the objection about the reading of speedometer which stood at 13538 KMs on 20.12.2013 ( the date on which the vehicle was insured) as well as on  09.01.2014 ( the date of survey after the accident).  Both the grounds are untenable; firstly in inspection report Exhibit R-4 dated 20.12.2013 which is a document of the opposite party wherein the chassis number and registration number are of the same vehicle which was duly inspected by the surveyor of the opposite party.  Further the report of surveyor which are Exhibits R-6 and R-7 dated 09.01.2014 also reflects the same chassis number and registration number.  The surveyor of the opposite party has given the registration number as well as the embossed chassis number from the vehicle which was inspected by him.  So this objection is of no help to the opposite party and the same is disallowed.  So far as the second objection of the opposite party which is to the effect that the speedometer was giving the same reading on 20.12.2013 as well as on 09.01.2014 i.e. pre inspection and survey after the accident.  First of all reading of the vehicle to be the same on both occasions may be due to several reasons and technical defects which might have stopped the running of speedometer while driving the car like disconnection of speedometer wire or any other technical defects, so this cannot be the reason of disallowing the claim.

 6.                   The surveyor of the opposite party has agreed to the spare parts to be repaired and this claim amount almost concur with the amount actually spent by the complainant on the repairing the vehicle from M/s Javed Motors, Alwar Road, Nuh.  So the objection of no damage to the rear bumper and dickey is not tenable.  Further the opposite party has taken the objection that the vehicle was got repaired from an unapproved workshop as well as an objection that no mechanic report was prepared by the police.  These objections are of no consequence when the surveyor of the opposite party has given a report of estimated loss to the tune of Rs.1,58,076/- and the actual cost of repairing is 1,58,552/-.  The counsel for the opposite party has relied upon a case of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills (2010) 10 SSC 19 but the same is not applicable to the facts of the case is hand.

  7.                 In view of the above discussions, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, resultantly the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,076/-(as per the surveyor report after deduction of depreciation and compulsory excess amount) alongwith interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 13.01.2016 till its realization.  The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room. 

                         This order of the Forum is running into 5 pages in total and each and every page of this order has been checked & signed.

Announced in open Court.

31.01.2017

(Urmil Beniwal)        (Keeran Bala)                                                                            (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)                        

    Member                  Member                                                                                              President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Nuh