In the matter of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties.
The factual matrix of the case is that :-
The Complainant had purchased one Four wheeler Traveera vehicle of Chevrolet Company from Bharat Motors Ltd. Sambalpur, on 29.10.2014 vide Invoice No. R00084 at the cost of Rs. 8,87,821/- (Rupees Eight lakh eighty seven thousand eight hundred twenty one) only for his exclusive personal use. The said vehicle bearing No. OD 26 – 8989, Engine No. 31P 185494, Chasis No. MA6ABCJ5EEH010869 has been registered by R.T.A. Nuapada with a valid fitness, insurance being driven by personal driver i.e. O.P. No. 1 holding valid driving license on the relevant date of accident. O.P. No.1 alongwith the complainant had been to village Kusumguda, P.S. Chhura, Dist. Gariaband (Chhattisgarh) to bring their family members to attend the marriage ceremony of Khilawan Yadav. On 28.02.2015, the complainant along with O.P. No.1 had gone to Chhura to fetch fuel (diesel) in the said vehicle and at the relevant point of time between Chhura to Kusumguda while their returning the said vehicle come across with accident about 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M. inspite of careful driving and to save the life of two drunken persons who was coming from the front side of the Road. On the said accident, the above said vehicle damaged and the entire body was capsized due to fall on the side of the road and thereafter immediately the complainant intimated the matter of accident and extent of damage of the vehicle to the Insurance Company (O.P.No.2) over Phone and a letter of intimation and as per the intimation and advised of O.P. No. 2, the said vehicle shifted to nearest Service Center Bardhaman Motors Ltd. (O.P. No. 3) from the spot to Raipur and it made an estimate and assessment towards the extent of damage of vehicle. On approval of O.P. No. 2 through his authorized surveyor assessed the entire damage of vehicle and made a proposal and estimate of repair. After approval the estimate by O.P. No. 2, the O.P. No. 3 (Service Center) repaired the vehicle with an expenditure of Rs. 2,77,504/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy seven thousand five hundred four) and after completion of the total
repair of the vehicle, O.P. No. 3 (Service Center) produced the bills of claim to the Insurance Company along with all bills of claims and documents on 20.05.2015. But, unfortunately without any basis, O.P. No. 2 refused and repudiated the claim made by the complainant which repaired and estimated through O.P. No. 3 in a superfluous manner with a pretension that the vehicle was used as a Taxi purpose though it was engaged for personal use of complainant. So, without any option, the complainant disposing the claim through O.P. No. 3.
Further the complainant had engaged another vehicle for his personal use to meet his requirement and to keep the track of business communication and thus he has enquired an additional expenditure of Rs. 70,000/- for hiring of vehicle due to wrongful detention of his vehicle causing delay of about 7 (seven) months.
The petitioner has approached the O.P. No. 2 at different occasion to release the claim amount but he refused to settle the claim for which the complainant sustained loss and mentally agonized due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.Ps.
The cause of action arose on 20.05.2015 when the complainant had been to the office of O.P. No. 2 to settle the claim, but he refused the claim of complainant and as such the complainant claimed relief’s as prayed for.
The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim as under :-
1) Attested true copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle as (Annexure-1
2) Attested true copy of Insurance Certificate of vehicle as (Annexure-2 to 2/3).
3) Attested true copy of bill issued by Bharat Motors Ltd. bearing Invoice No. R00084, dated 29.10.2014 as (Annexure-3).
4) Attested true copy of intimation letter issued by Motor claims department of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. dated 08.05.2015 as (Annexure-4).
5) Attested true copy of reply letter issued by complainant to Motor claims department as (Annexure-5).
6) Attested true copy of sale certificate issued by Bharat Motors Ltd. dated 06.11.2014 as (Annexure-6).
7) Attested true copy of Estimate for repairs vide No. 2014000614, dated 03.03.2015 issued by Vardhman Motor as (Annexure-7 to 7/4.).
8) Attested true copy of supplementary Estimate for repairs vide No. 2015000085, dt. 21.04.2015 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure-8 to 8/2).
9) Attested true copy of Money Receipt bearing No. 5714 dt.13.3.15 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure-9).
10) Attested true copy of Money Receipt bearing No. 034 dt. 28.3.15 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure-10).
11) Attested true copy of Money Receipt No.525 dt. 27.4.15 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure-11).
12) Attested true copy of Money Receipt bearing No.798 dt. 24.5.15 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure-12).
13) Attested true copy of “JOB RETAIL INVOICE” dt.20.5.15 issued by Vardhman Motors as (Annexure -13 to 13/12).
14) Attested true copy of Money Receipt issued by one Anil Sahu as (Annexure-14).
After received the notice, the Opposite parties neither appeared nor filed any written version in this case so they set ex-parte.
In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-
I) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
II) Whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law ?
III) Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and there is cause of action ?
IV) Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties ?
V) To what relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to ?
ISSUE No. I to IV.
Since, the issues are very much linked with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.
On perusal of the case record as well as the documents of complainant, it is found that the complainant has purchased one Four wheeler Traveera vehicle of Chevrolet Company from Bharat Motors Ltd. Sambalpur, on 29.10.2014 vide Invoice No. R00084 at the cost of Rs. 8,87,821/- (Rupees Eight lakh eighty seven thousand eight hundred twenty one) only for his exclusive personal use. The said vehicle bearing No. OD 26 – 8989, Engine No. 31P 185494, Chasis No. MA6ABCJ5EEH010869 has been duly registered by the R.T.A., Nuapada with a valid fitness, insurance being driven by personal driver i.e. O.P. No. 1 holding valid driving license on the relevant date of accident.
Further, it is seen that the O.P. No. 2 & 4 have doing their business in this locality and earned benefit from their customer.
As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (d)(ii) explain consumer means, any person “who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly promised or any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than commercial purpose” so the status of consumer cannot be deniable and thereby the maintainability.
In another factual aspect is that, the complainant along with O.P. No. 1 (Driver) had been to village Kusumguda of Police Station Chhura, District Gariaband (Chhattisgarh) on 28.02.2015 to bring their family members to attend the marriage of his related brother and according they proceded to Chhura to fetch fuel i.e. diesel in the said vehicle and in between Chhura to Kusumguda while their returning they met an accident about 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M. inspite of carefully driving and to save the life of two drunken persons was coming from the front side of the road and basing on the said accident the said vehicle had damaged and the entire body was capsized due to fall on the side of the road and
thereafter the complainant immediately intimated the matter of accident and extent of damaged of the vehicle to the Insurance Company (O.P. No.2) over phone and a letter of intimation. Thereafter, as per the instruction and advised of O.P. No.2, the said vehicle shifted to Vardhman Motors Ltd. (O.P. No.3) as he is an Authorised Service Center and he made an estimate towards the extent of damage. As per the approval of O.P. No.2, the authorized surveyor assessed the entire damage of vehicle and made a proposal and estimate of repair. After approval the estimate by O.P. No.2, O.P. No.3 (Service Center) repaired the vehicle with an expenditure of Rs. 2,77,504/- and after completion of the repair, O.P. No.3 produced the bills of claims and documents on 20.05.2015. But, unfortunately without any basis O.P. No.2 refused and repudiate the claim made by the complainant which repaired and estimated through O.P. No.3 superfluous manner with a pretension that the vehicle was used as a Taxi purpose though it was engaged for personal use of complainant.
Further, it is seen that the complainant has approached the O.P. No.2 at different occasion along with a letter to release the claim amounts but he refused to settle the claim and finally they have failed to settle the claim of complainant as yet which is squarely absurd by them.
So without any option, the complainant has paid Rs. 2,77,504.00 to O.P. No.3 towards the cost of repair of the said vehicle as per Annexure-9 to 12 which is proved the claim of complainant.
Such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.
In another factual aspect is that the insurance is contract of utmost good faith and the insured person takes the insurance policy by keeping faith on the company. But, his hopes and dreams shattered by the attitude of insurer when the issue of claim arises. The InsuranceCompany find several ways how to repudiate the claim even it is genuine one and harass the claimant and make him to run from pillar to post. It is just unfair and unacceptable.
Here, the Consumer Protection Act is social legislation and there is need to strike down such practices and need to give proper redressal to the consumers.
Infact, the Insurance Company should be magnanimous enough generous to award the claims at single window, without any hassle and with full co-operation.
So, from the perusal of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applied to all type of goods, and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid, or promised. Section 1 (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is of wide connotation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES Vrs… BALBIR SINGH, that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken into consideration while compensating him in the loss of injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.
In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.
Further we find that Annexure-14 is capricious and as such it is unconsidered.
In another aspect is that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he has not filed any claim in any other court relating to this except this Forum.
Further, it is seen that O.P. No. 1 and 3 are not liable in this case.
In the above case, the Advocate for the complainant has argued on the point of their claim.
Perused the documents of the complainant, we found that the claim of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Neeraj Munjal and others . Vrs. Atul Grover (Minor) and others, 2005 (3) CLT-30 of the Judgment held that the Court could not deprive the parties from a remedy, which is otherwise available to them; in law. It has been further held that a Court of law has to jurisdiction to direct a matter to be governed by one statute when provision of other statute are available”.
So, we are of considered opinion that, this Forum has wide jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and the complainant has cause of action.
Supporting to the all above findings, we again quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta .. Vrs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011.
Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. N. 2 and 4 as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service by the O.P. No. 2 & 4.
So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. No. 2 and 4. Thus, O.P. No. 2 and 4 are liable for deficiency in service.
So, accordingly, the issues answered and goes in favour of the complainant.
ISSUES No. V.
It is clear crystal that, the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order.
O R D E R.
In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct U/s 14 (i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-
1) We direct the Opposite Party No. 2 and 4 to pay Rs. 2,77,504/- (Rupees two lakh seventy seven thousand five hundred four) only towards the cost of repaired of the vehicle bearing No. OD-26-8989 along with interest @ 9 % (Nine per cent) per annum from 20.05.2015 till payment within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.
2) We further direct the O.P. No. 2 and 4 to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and further pay as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order.
3) Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 21st day of April 2018.
