Complainant Santokh Singh has filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that opposite parties may be directed to handover his vehicle after making necessary preparation by way of denting, painting etc. on the side and back portion of the vehicle in question in a proper and fit manner. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased Ford Figo from the opposite party no.1 for his personal use and occupation. The vehicle has been got registered with the Transport Authorities vide registration No.PB-06-V-3566. The said vehicle was insured with opposite party no.3 vide policy bearing cover note No.SD 1375366. Unfortunately, his vehicle met with an road accident in the first week of March 2015 and about this he informed the opposite party no.3 and on its assurance the said vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party no.2. The employee of the opposite party no.3 has visited the workshop of the opposite party no.2 and has seen his damaged vehicle and has also taken photographs of the same. The said employee of the opposite parties have made assessment of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.36,824.80 Paisa. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 stated to him that for the proper maintenance and for the proper denting, painting etc. the vehicle is required to be kept in the  workshop of the opposite party no.1 and as per the instructions of the opposite party no.2 he has left the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. He has further pleaded that few days ago, the employees of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have telephonically contacted him and asked him that they have prepared his damaged vehicle and he can take away his vehicle but as and when he reached  the workshop of the opposite parties and saw the vehicle and then he found that the front portion of the vehicle in question was got prepared after denting and painting but side and back portion of the vehicle in question is still in damaged condition. When he asked him to got prepare the said side and backside portion of the vehicle in question which is in damaged condition, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have refused to do so, with the pretext that they have done the work as per the instructions of the opposite party no.3. He has number of times visited the workshop of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and always made request to them to got prepare the damaged vehicle in question, but they refused to do so. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great mental agony as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed against the opposite parties alongwith special costs of Rs.10,000/- U/S 26 of the C.P.Act; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands  and suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. Actually the complainant brought his vehicle at the premises of the opposite parties on 18.03.2015 after driving the vehicle upto 52128K.M. for accidental repair, as the vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.3, the same fact was intimated to them and front bumper, grill, hood, running board were damaged in accident. The opposite party no.3 had appointed their surveyor who after inspecting the vehicle had approved the abovesaid damaged part to be replaced and as per the direction and as much the approval to repair the vehicle, the opposite parties had repaired the vehicle. Once the opposite party no.3 had given the approval to initiate the repair work upon the vehicle and same was done and a total bill of repair work to the tune of Rs.14,567/- was raised by the opposite parties, out of which Rs.10,450/- were paid by the opposite party no.3 as per their terms and conditions of their policy after deducting the depreciation amount, the remaining amount of Rs.4117/- was supposed to be paid by the complainant, which the complainant failed to do so. The vehicle of the complainant is lying in the premises of the opposite party after the completion of the repair work but the complainant has not removed the same from the workshop of the opposite party. The vehicle of the complainant is unnecessarily occupying the space of the workshop of the opposite party since 13.06.2015 for which the complainant is bound to pay an amount of Rs.250/- per day as parking charges. Opposite party had also issued a letter dated 28.06.2015 to the complainant and the present complaint is counter blast to the said letter. The opposite party reserves its rights to recover the said amount from the complainant by initiating the appropriate proceedings before the competent court of jurisdiction. It has been further submitted that the complainant is chronic litigant and he is in habit of dragging the opposite party in false and frivolous litigation. Prior to this case, the complainant had earlier filed a complaint No.297 of 2013 against the opposite party no.1 as well as against then Insurance Company by concocting the same story as alleged in the present complaint. The said complaint was dismissed by this Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 21.07.2014. On merits, it was submitted that side and back portion of the vehicle in question were not damaged in the accident; this was the reason that opposite party No.3 had not given any approval to repair the same. As per their policy, alleged scratched, dents or dislocation of paint, if any, required to be removed from the vehicle, the complainant has to make the payment of the same to the opposite parties. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had never refused to remove the dents, if any, or paint the back and side portion of the vehicle, if the complainant offered them the repair cost of the same. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Upon notice opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim has been filed by the complainant in which he alleged that his vehicle damaged in an accident. The surveyor Sanjeev Gupta has been duly appointed and he duly inspected the vehicle and afterwards submitted final survey report after going through all the damaged parts and as per his survey report the net assessed loss is Rs.10,557/-. The amount of Rs.10,557/- has been directly paid to A.B. Motors through NEFT who repaired the vehicle. So there is no liability of the insurance company and the amount of claim has already been paid. Even Santokh Singh acknowledged the amount of Rs.10,557/- as full and final settlement. On merits, it was submitted that the claim has been filed by the complainant, in which he alleged that his vehicle damaged in an accident. The surveyor Sanjeev Gupta has been duly appointed and he duly inspected the vehicle and afterwards submitted final survey report after going through all the damaged parts and as per his survey report the net assessed loss is Rs.10,557/-. The amount of Rs.10,557/- has been directly paid to A.B. Motors through NEFT who repaired the vehicle. So there is no liability of the insurance company and the amount of claim has already been paid. Even Santokh Singh acknowledged the amount of Rs.10,557/- as full and final settlement. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

5.         Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh Manager Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other document Ex.OP1,2/2  and Ex.OP1,2/3 and closed the evidence.

7.       Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nimisha Shahani, Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OP3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/14 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We observe that the complainant has not specified date, place, FIR etc pertaining to the accidental loss/ damage caused to the insured car or even attempted to explain the reason of their absence etc. The complainant has also failed to prove through some cogent evidence that the loss/damage caused to the front portion, side portion and the rear portion of the insured car has been the outcome of one single accident-transaction. The repairs estimates by the OP2 (Ex.C4) simply assess the cost of repairs of the damages in totality but not the details of the accident. The complainant has not even contested the Surveyor’s Report Ex.OP3/8 assessing the loss at Rs.10,557/- that already stand paid to the OP2 workshop for having repaired the accidented car. In fact, the ‘onus of proof’ to prove the alleged defect, deficiency in service, employment of unfair trade practice and unscrupulous exploitation under the Act lies heavily upon the ‘complainant’ and that the present complainant here has failed to discharge/ execute. On the other hand, we find that the OP insurers have produced sufficient evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OP3/1 & other documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/14 i.e., Policy cover, Section 64VB compliance, Accident claim, Claim settlement, Repair estimates, Surveyor Report Estimates, Repair Bill(s), Requisition of claim documents etc and others on record to prove absence of deficiency in service, defect/misconduct etc under the Act. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant has not been able to successfully prove the allegations as contented in the present complaint. 

 9.      In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint bereft of any actionable merit under the Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President.                                                                                        

ANNOUNCED:                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 18, 2015                                                Member.

*MK*