Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/106/2021

Sh. Puneet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Bansal adv

09 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	106/2021
Date of Institution	:	15.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	09.05.2024

 

                                       

                       

Sh. Puneet Kumar s/o Sh. Pawan Kumar, R/o H.No.1414, Sector 21, Panchkula

....Complainant

Versus

1.     Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd., 53, Industrial Area-2, Chandigarh

2.     Ford India Private Limited, 5th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44 Road, Sec 44, Gurugram.

3.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO 37-38, 1st Floor, Near D.C. Office, 17C, Sector 17, Chandigarh, 160017

....Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Rahul Bansal, Counsel for the complainant Sh.Vikas, Adv. Proxy for Sh.H.S.Bedi, Counsel for OP No.1. Sh.Sudhir Gupta, Counsel for OP No.3 OP No.2 exparte.

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that he got insured Ford Eco Sport vehicle bearing registration No.CH-01-BH-1035 insured with OP No.3 through OPs No.1 and 2, which was valid from 01.08.2020 to 02.08.2021. The policy in respect to the car was bumper to bumper cashless.  The vehicle met with an accident on 10.10.2020, which was towed to the premises of OP No.1 for its repairs, promised to be delivered on 31.10.2020 on the ground that the some parts of the vehicle were to be ordered from the company. However, the OPs alleged to have cheated him by mentioning the delivery date as 10.12.2020 instead of 31.10.2020 in the receiving memo (Annexure C-2).  On 31.10.2020, he was given a new date i.e. 03.11.2020 stating that the delivery was delayed owing to some pending repairs. It has been averred that OP No.1 demanded Rs. 3955/- for Repair Charges and Rs.12,451/- on account of clutch repair charges, which were duly paid.  However, the front alloy wheel and tyre of the driver side (right side) which was also damaged were not replaced by the OPs under the policy and the said fact has come to his knowledge when he went to have wheel alignment. OP No.1 replaced the damaged alloy wheel and tyre with the spare alloy wheel and tyre already present in the car and therefore, he requested them to replace the same as per the policy and even wrote an e-mail dated 07.01.2021 in this regard to the OPs but to no effect.  Finally, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 08.01.2021 requiring the OPs to replace the damaged alloy wheel and tyre under the policy but the same has also failed to yield any result.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to pay the price of the alloy wheel and tyre and to pay the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.         In its written version, OP No.1 has stated that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission. It has been admitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop for the accidental repairs on 10.10.2020. After inspecting the vehicle, an estimate was prepared which was given to the insurance company. The complainant was informed that as the parts were to be ordered from the manufacturer i.e. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and the same were to come from Chennai, the repairs might take a little more time and as such vide repair order, the tentative date of delivery i.e. 10.12.2020 was given  which was an outer date and the vehicle can be repaired prior to that and can be delivered to the customer. During the repairs when certain parts were dismantled and the alloy wheel was also taken out there was a little crack on the same and the surveyor and the complainant were informed. Both the Surveyor and the complainant came to the workshop, where the Surveyor refused to honour the claim of tyre as well as the alloy wheel on the ground that it is a consequential loss as the complainant has driven the vehicle after accident. The vehicle was repaired fully by 18.11.2020 and the bill was generated to the tune of Rs.1,02,244.33/- and the same was sent to the insurance company. It has further been stated that the Surveyor vide its email dated 19.11.2020 allowed the claim of Rs.98.289.78/- and after making the payment of Rs.3955/- which was the differential cost between the bill and the claim accepted by the insurance company, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was satisfied and did not raise any concern thereafter for almost 2 months. It was only on 07.01.2021 that the complainant raised the claim that his tyre and alloy has not been replaced under insurance and the said email was forwarded to it, immediately on 08.01.2021 the Service Manager wrote back to M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. OP No.2 that the said parts have been refused by the surveyor on the ground of consequential loss. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In its written version, OP No.3 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that as far as the allegations of cheating are concerned, the company has nothing to do with the same.   It has further been stated that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor in coordination with the insured and on the basis of the estimates provided found that the parts recommended for replacement in his assessment report dated 19.11.2020 were found to have been replaced and all the repairs as per the recommendations carried out thereof and therefore any other claim raised is not payable.  It has further been stated that neither the Surveyor nor the insurer ever assured for replacement and reimbursement of the front wheel as claimed.  The complainant himself mis-conducted by raising false claims with regard to the parts which were neither damaged nor covered under the policy. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.05.2022.
5.        The complainant filed replication to the written replies of the OPs No.1 and 3 and controverted their stand and reiterating his own.
6.         The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
7.         We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
8.         From the perusal of the rival submissions of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, it is observed that the vehicle was duly insured under the policy issued by OP No.3 when the same was met with an accident on 10.10.2020 near Tribune Chowk, Chandigarh.  From the photographs of the vehicle annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-1 (Colly.), it is further observed that the vehicle was damaged from the driver side (right side) badly and the alloy wheel and the tyre of the vehicle were also damaged in the said accident.  Since, the policy in respect of the vehicle in question was bumper to bumper i.e. nil depreciation, therefore, it is liability of the Insurance Company I.e. OP No.3 to indemnify the complainant qua loss/damages suffered by the vehicle in the said accident.  Non-release of the claim in respect of the alloy wheel and the tyre of the vehicle which was damaged in the said accident despite the fact that the policy in question was bumper to bumper i.e. nil depreciation, certainly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3.
9.         Consequently, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed qua OP No.3-Insurance Company. OP No.3-Insurance Company  is directed to pay Rs.20,000/-  and Rs.6400/- towards the price of the alloy wheel and tyre respectively to the complainant.
10.         This order be complied with by OP No.3-Insurance Company within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which OP No.3 shall be liable to pay the awarded amounts to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its default till the date of its actual realization to the complainant. 
11.         The complaint qua OPs No.1 and 2 stands dismissed.
12.         The pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 09.05.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER