Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/100/2017

Magej - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Axagi - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Goyal

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI

 

                                           Complaint Case No.:100 of 2017

     Date of Institution  : 28.07.2017

                                           Date of Decision    : 21.02.2024

 

Mangej son of Sh. Balwan, R/o village Badala, P.O. Kayla, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1. Amit Parmar, Surveyor, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company, Bigjosh Tower, Lala Jagat Narain Marg, Neta Ji Subhash Palace Wazirpur, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.

 

2. Shashi Kant, Body-Shop Manager, Raghu Hyundai Showroorm, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

3. Surender Singh Dahiya, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, 101, Ground Floor, Munjal Complex near Sessions Court, Rohtak-124001.

 

4. Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Company, Bigjosh Tower, Lala Jagat Narain Marg, Neta Ji Subhash Palace Wazirpur, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.

 

5. Manager, Hyundai Motor India Limited, 2^nd, 5^th, 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Baani Building) Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025.

 

                                      ...Opposite Parties 

Before: -   Smt.Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:    Sh. Suraj, Advocate for complainant.

               Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.2.

               Sh. Avinash Sardana, Advocate for OP No.4.

OPs No.1 & 5 exparte v.o.d. 12.09.2017 & 20.09.2022 respectively.

               OP No.3 given up on 23.04.2021.

       

ORDER

Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.   

1.          Brief facts of this case are that complainant is owner of a car i-20 which was insured with OP No.4 insurance company. It is averred that on 04.07.2017 at about 10:35 p.m., in a cattle fight, the car became damaged. At that time, the vehicle was being driven by his friend Ajit Kumar.  On 05.07.2017, he lodged a claim with OP insurance company through his advocate. The vehicle bearing regn. No. HR-16R-8417 was got parked at the showroom of OP No.2 on 05.07.2017 and remained there till 27.07.2017 and during this time, the vehicle was surveyed by 6-7 times. Complainant has alleged that parts in the vehicle has not been fitted as per bill rather 20% parts have been replaced. Complainant has submitted that the OP took his original license and now they are handing over him as duplicate which refused by complainant. It is stated that complainant has to pay Rs.17,600/- for taxi charges for dong his personal work. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant seeking directions against the OPs to pay Rs.17,600/- for loss suffered by him due to delay in repairs of the vehicle. Further to pay Rs.75,000/- on account of compensation for harassment besides litigation expenses.
2.         Upon notice contesting OPs appeared. OP No.4 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has submitted that on receipt of intimation qua accident, surveyor Sh. Surender Dahiya was appointed who reported loss to the tune of Rs.25,970.97p. which was approved on 27.07.2017 for damages of the insured vehicle  and complainant had also signed the discharge voucher for settling the claim in Rs.25,970/- as full and final settlement of the claim.  But the present complaint has been filed by complainant just to harass the answering OP otherwise the answering OP is ready to make the payment of Rs.25,970/- as assessed by the surveyor. In the end, deficiency in service on their part has been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3.         OP No.2 appeared through counsel and taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant had brought the vehicle in question to the workshop of answering OP in damaged condition and requested to prepare estimate of the repair and carry out the repair of the vehicle. So, the answering OP prepared estimate of the said car vide serial No.5455 dated 05.07.2017.  After this, surveyor came on 08.07.2017 and asked the complainant for some documents.  Thereafter, on 14.07.2017, Sh. Surender Dahiya, Surveyor given approval for the work to be done on telephone and after repairs, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 27.07.2017. It is averred that RS.1000/- as Excess Clause was paid by complainant but the remaining amount of Rs.25,971/- was neither paid by complainant nor by Bharti AXA General Insurance Company till date. As such, this OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Further, complainant may be directed to make the payment of Rs.25,971/- directly to the answering OP as repair charges.
4.         OP No.5 filed its written statement stating that the case of complainant is that the car was damaged due to an accident and there is no allegation of defect in the said car.  Since, the answering OP is manufacturer of Hyundai cars and therefore, is liable for its warranty obligations alone. Rest of the matter is inter se the complainant, the dealer/workshop and the insurance company. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5.         In evidence of complainant, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 were tendered and closed the evidence.
6.         On the other side, leaned counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Ishwar Dass, Proprietor of OP No.2 as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8 and closed the evidence.
7.          Leaned counsel for OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sonu Rathi, Legal Manager as Ex. RW4/A and documents Annexure R4/1 to Annexure R4/8 and closed the evidence.
8.          We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the case file minutely.
9.          During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has admitted that the amount of Rs.25,970/- was credited by the OP insurance company in the bank account of complainant.  Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the aforesaid amount was given to complainant after filing of this complaint before this Commission, for which complainant has to incur huge amount on the litigation as well as has suffered mental agony and physical harassment because of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The counsel has further argued that the vehicle was kept in the workshop of OP No.2 for a longtime for repairs whereas in a normal course, the vehicle should be repaired within three days. The counsel has pointed out that as per document attached with Annexure C-1, original DL and RC of the vehicle was kept by the OP No.2 but the Original driving license of driver was not returned because of which complainant has to suffer mental agony and harassment besides financial loss of Rs.17,600/- in his travelling fair to go for his routine work.
10. In totality of the facts & circumstances of this case, we have come to the conclusion that the OP No.2 workshop has kept the original driving license allegedly of complainant and not returned the same.  Further, the vehicle was kept for a long time than the normal time for its repairs which definitely caused the complainant mental agony, physical harassment as well as monetary loss.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions with 30 days from the date of passing of this order:-

 

(i)       To return the original Driving License of complainant.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforesaid awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:21.02.2024.