Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that the complainant is the wife of Dipanjan Bhattacharya and empowered to file the instant case by virtue of Power of Attorney dated 10-05-2013 executed by Dipanjan Bhattacharya in her favour and complainant’s husband is the owner of a Honda City Car being No.WB06-2591 which is duly insured with the OP1 since it was purchased but the said vehicle was seriously damaged in an accident on 04-12-2011 while plying on Durgapur Express Highway near Gurap.  The said car was under comprehensive insurance of the OP vide policy No.1544031116100008562 and immediately after the accident the car was sent to Pinnacle Honda, one of the authorized repairer, for thorough repairing and the matter was duly intimated to the OPs and claim intimation was sent to them via e-mail dated 05-12-2011.

          On 06-03-2012, the OPs were informed via e-mail and claimed payment directly to the repairer and also estimated cost of repair was sent to them which was given by the authorized repairer on 19-03-2012.

          For repairing purpose an amount of Rs.40,000/- was finally deposited by Mr. Depanjan Bhattacharya to take care of depreciation, salvage and policy excess which are not possible and as per Insurance Policy.

          Complainant time to time used to follow up with the OPs regarding the payment of claim but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request with utter negligence and series of complaints through e-mail were sent to the OPs and the same are also filed.  But as being a service provider the OPs beyond any reasonable doubt failed and neglected to provide service till the filing of the complaint.  As a consequence the said car is still lying with the repairer who is forcing the complainant to take delivery of the car and the acts and deeds of the OPs as revealed is crystal clear that their negligence to provide service to the complainant as a service provider and it tantamount to unfair trade practice.  So, in the circumstances complainant filed this complaint for relief and for justice before this Forum when complainant get no relief from the Insurance Company and in the circumstances, complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lakh and for payment of the repairing amount etc and litigation cost.

          Written version was filed by the Insurance Company and in the said written version OP submitted that the complainant has primarily challenged the partial approval of the amount towards disbursement of claim in respect of the insurance covered for the private car of the complainant’s husband and it is specifically mentioned that complainant’s husband is the owner of the said vehicle but complainant has not filed any power of attorney in this case and which must be submitted.

          It is further stated that OP immediately after receiving a complaint appointed a surveyor and assessed the claim of the complainant and, thereafter, initially submitted a report on 30-06-2012 and thereby OP sanctioning a sum of the claim towards full and final settlement.  Further said surveyor reassessed and sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,39,410/- as the amount to be payable at full and final payment and on the basis of such report this OP on 06-09-2013 forwarded a settlement voucher to the tune of Rs.1,39,410/-.  Thereafter, in the light of the above context it is stated and submitted that no charges of deficiency in service can be casted upon this OP as this OP has acted promptly and diligently in settling the claim and sanctioned the amount that is permissible within the terms and conditions of the policy and it is further submitted that as service provider OP Insurance Company discharge their duties promptly so there is no question of unfair trade practice and or negligence and deficient manner of service and further it is submitted that no other claim is due.  In view of the fact the matter was finally settled as per surveyor’s report.

          On the other hand, OP3 by filing written version submitted that the car in question met a serious accident and was sent to the service centre of the OP3 on 05-12-2011 and on the same date job card was opened.  After thorough inspection estimate for repair of the car was prepared and sent to the Insurance Company (National Insurance Company).  Dipanjan Bhattacharya was asked to deposit advance and he paid Rs.40,000/- in cash on 10-05-2012.  The made ready after thorough repair after replacement of huge parts and customer was informed for taking delivery of the car and the car has been lying in the OP3’s garage since 21-08-2012 after thorough repair which was informed to him and as per terms and condition the parking charges have been effective on the car from 28-08-2012@Rs.350/- per day and accumulated charges for the garage was Rs.1,37,900/- plus taxes and incidental till 26-09-2013 and accordingly to it was informed to Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharya by e-mail dated 26-09-2013 in response of her e-mail of the same date.  Now garage charges has become Rs.1,99,500/- up to 20-03-2014.  This OP states that total invoice value of the repair is Rs.2,25,600/- and the total parking charges @Rs.350/- per day including charge and incidental approx Rs.1,99,500/- till 20-03-2014 and this OP made communication with the complainant to take back his car but he has not responded.  This OP states that as service provider they started work after they had received confirmation to start the work and advance of Rs.40,000/- and after receipt of Rs.40,000/- the car is ready for delivery since 21-08-2012.  But this OP has not received any payment for invoice and the said garage charges.  The dispute raised in the petition is totally between the complainant and the Insurance Company.  This OP has nothing to do but is falsely implicated the case and for which the complaint should be dismissed against the OP3.

Decision with Reasons

On an indepth study of the complaint and written version including the document as filed by the parties it is clear that the present disputed Honda City car being No.WB 06 2591 met an accident on 04-12-2011 while proceeding through Durgapur Express Highway near Gurap and the car was under comprehensive policy No. 1544031116100008562 under the OP1 and the OP1 admitted that fact and it is a fact that complainant after accident placed the car to Service Centre Pinnacle Honda, an authorized Service Centre of Honda Company and Pinnacle Honda repaired the said car and charged cost of the said car which was badly damaged and delivered the bill to the OP2 to settle all the claim amount on behalf of the complainants.  Fact remains just after accident information was reported to OP Insurance Company and as per Insurance Company instruction the repairing work was started and one Tanmoy Sarkar was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor and after whole inspection surveyed the loss and submitted the report on 30-06-2012 and after thorough survey and assessment initially surveyor assessed a loss for repair cost of Rs.1,41,700/-.  Thereafter, again after repair on 05-09-2013 surveyor and loss assessor as appointed assessed further loss etc. and additional assessment was drawn as additional amount.  Accordingly, surveyor and loss assessor recommended for realizing a sum of Rs.1,41,700/- and ultimately insurance company considering the two reports of the loss assessor settled finally a sum of Rs.1,39,410/- and complainant was informed on 06-09-2013 for receiving the sum but complainant did not receive it.  So, apparently it is found that the OP settled the claim the complainant and vehicle in question was sent to the authorized service centre of the Honda as per OP Insurnce Company’s consent and it was reported to the Insurance Company and Insurance Company gave clearance to the said authorized service centre Pinnacle Honda for repairing.  Thereafter, repair was made then it is clear when the authorized service centre being ordered by the Insurance Company repaired the same then it is the duty of the insurance to pay the said amount.  Another factor is that Pinnacle Honda after thorough repairing submitted a bill of Rs.2,55,660/- to the Insurance Company then it is clear that the inspection of the said vehicle after repairing and before repairing ought to have been made by any Automobile Engineer appointed by the OP.  But OP sent a loss assessor but it is a mandatory provision of law if any vehicle faces any accident and is found damaged in that case loss assessment shall be made by an expert who is an Automobile Engineer but the surveyor appointed by OP having no automobile degree etc. made assessment in this case so, this assessment cannot be treated as a good assessment when as per order of the Insurance Company Pinnacle Honda repaired it and Pinnacle Honda is an authorized service centre of Honda Company.  Then Insurance Company is bound to follow report of the said authorized service centre and bill was not prepared by the complainant and complainant is out of the picture and order for repairing was given by the insurance company so, insurance company cannot deny payment but no doubt it appears that some cost shall be deducted out of the total amount of Rs.2,25,660/-.  Another factor is that complainant already paid Rs.40,000/- to the Pinnacle Honda that shall be considered out of total amount of Rs.2,25,660/- and in this context it is to be mentioned that insurance company has assessed the loss and settlement loss for such damage and repairing and settled the sum of Rs.1,39,410/- but it is the duty of the insurance company to settle the matter and to pay the entire dues of the OP3 in respect of the repairing cost at once after deducting salvage charges and ext. but we are sure that insurance company shall have to linger for which complainant may face trouble and in the circumstances we are directing the OP to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the repairing company OP3 at once as a final settlement of the complainant in respect of the present claim petition filed by the complainant’s husband and no doubt in the present case the assessment of surveyor or loss assessor was not up to the mark and for which we are sure that an un-experienced man assessed loss, in respect of repairing damages and fact remains the loss assessor had no knowledge about the mechanism and about spare parts of the motor vehicles as he is not a holder of any diploma degree or any certificate of automobile engineering and in the present case when the repair was made as per instruction of the OP Company.  OP is bound to clear the bill after deducting such amount but that has not been done.  So, we are directing the OP to pay to Rs.2 lakhs to the OP3 and OP3 shall not have any authority to claim more than that because it is the practice of the service centre to charge huge amount sometimes it is found that repair cost is higher than that total valuation of the vehicle and this service centre is no doubt continuing their deceptive practice in such a manner and fact remains in many cases price of the parts are found charged at higher rate so we have deducted Rs.25,660/- and directing the insurance company to pay Rs.2 lakhs and within one month to the OP3 and OP3 shall have to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant and under any circumstances OP Service Centre cannot charge any amount to the extent of Rs.300/- per day as garage charge but garage charge may be charged @Rs.50/- per day what shall be paid by the complainant and it shall be paid up to disposal of the case not after that and complainant and her husband may clear that part of the dues that is the garage charge to the OP3 and OP3 shall release the same in favour of the complainant without any harassment.  Accordingly the complaint is disposed of finally with such observations and findings in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against OPs1 and 2 with a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) and same is also allowed against OP3 with cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only).

          OPs 1 and 2 are hereby directed to release a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as final settlement or the claim in respect of the present insurance policy of the complainant’s husband and in respect of the insured car the present vehicle and said amount shall be paid to the Pinnacle Honda (OP3) as repairing cost and invariably after deducting already paid Rs.40,000/- and balance Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) shall be paid to the owner of the vehicle i.e. insured.

          OP3 cannot claim more than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) as repairing cost under any circumstances from the complainant or OPs1 and 2.  OP3 is directed to release the said vehicle in favour of the complainant or her husband after receipt of garage charge @Rs.50/- per day till the date of the final order of this case but after that OP3 has no right to charge any further garage charge and garage charge as claimed by the OP3 @Rs.350/- is completely uncalled for and as a deceptive and unfair trade practice. 

Complainant and her husband is/are directed to pay garage charges @50/- per day with effect from 28-08-2012 to 18-06-2014 and receive the car from the OP3 when OPs1 and 2 shall have to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) as final settlement of the claim as repairing cost of the vehicle to the OP3 and insured as per portion i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- to OP3 and Rs.40,000/- to the insured of the vehicle.

OPs1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to clear the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) within one month from the date of this order by paying the same in favour of the OP3 by a cheque mentioning the account number of the OP3 for encashment and complainants busband as per proportion. 

If it is not complied by the OPs1 and 2 within one month in that case penal interest @Rs.500/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the degree and OPs1 and 2 shall have to pay the cost of the present complainant within one month also to the complainant.

          OP3 is hereby directed to release the car on receipt awarded amount from the Insurance Company and also the garage charge @Rs.50/- for the period from 28-08-2012 to 18-06-2014 and no other claim shall be made by the OP3 and if OP3 even after compliance of the same by the complainant and OPs1 and 2 shall not release the car in favour of the complainant and her husband in that case OP3 shall have to pay penal damages @Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

          All the OPs are directed to comply the order strictly accordingly to their portion within the stipulated period failing which penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty may be imposed against them.