Haryana

Jind

CC/35/2014

Bhim Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh J.S. Malik

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 35 of 2014
                            Date of institution:-4.4.2014
                            Date of decision:- 29.7.2016
Bhim Singh s/o Shishu Ram r/o R-86, Model Town Narwana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 
                                       ..Complainant.
Versus
Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd floor, Dare House, 2NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001 through its Managing Director/Responsible Person.
Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager/Responsible Person, Karnal, District Karnal (Haryana).
Hyundai Agency Ltd. through its Chola Mandal.
                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.  

Present:-    Sh. J.S. Malik, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv.for opposite parties No.1&2.
            Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.3.
  Order:-
         Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had insured his Verna Car bearing registration No. HR-32E-6469 for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/- vide policy No.3362/00759065/000/01 cover Note No.6994759 for a period from 20.2.2013 to 19.2.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.29,557/- as premium. The above said vehicle met with an 
            Bhim Singh Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …2…
incident in the area of Jodhpur (Rajasthan), the vehicle fell into ditches and suffered damages. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding incident of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents. As per instructions of the officials of opposite parties as well as directions of surveyor and loss assessor, the complainant has got repaired his vehicle  through Raja Hundai and Dhoot Services Private Ltd.78-A Partap Nagar Joudhpur and he had paid a sum of Rs.2,34.813/-  towards the repairing charges vide receipt dated 23.8.2013. The surveyor of the opposite parties has assessed the loss of Rs.1,18,000/- to his vehicle and sent the same to the bank of complainant namely Induland Bank with the loan account of complainant. Now a sum of Rs.1,16,813/- remained due towards the loss of said vehicle and he is legally entitled to recover the same from the opposite parties. The complainant served a legal notice dated 28.1.2014 through his counsel Sh. Jaibir Singh Malik Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain.   Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed  that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to make the remaining payment of Rs.1,16,813/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  2.  Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared, opposite party No.1 and 2 have filed the joint written statement but the opposite party No.3 has filed the separate written statement. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 have contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and this Forum has 
            Bhim Singh Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …3…
no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that as per terms and conditions of the policy and survey report paid a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- to the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the discharge of the claim and complainant has received the above said  claim amount and  now nothing has been remained outstanding against answering opposite parties.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.
3.    Opposite party No.3 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that no agreement executed between Chola Mandalam and answering opposite party.  The dispute is between the opposite party No.1 and 2 and the complainant and answering opposite party has no concerned with the present dispute.  Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1,  copies of legal notice dated 28.1.2014 Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4, copy of cover note Ex. C-5, copy of credit invoice Ex. C-6, copy of receipt Ex. C-7 and copy of RC Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have produced the affidavit of Sh. Tarun Kumar, Authorized Signatory Ex. OP-1, copy of final survey report Ex. OP-2, copy of motor loss voucher Ex. OP-3 and  copy of satisfaction certificate Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.3 has produced the 
            Bhim Singh Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …4…
affidavit of Sh. Rohit Kalra, General Manager Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.  
5.    We have heard Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. There is no dispute regarding the vehicle of complainant met with an accident. The main grievance of the complainant that as per instruction of the company as well as, as per direction of surveyor and loss assessor of the opposite party thereafter he got repaired the vehicle through Raja Hundai and Dhoot Services Private Ltd.78-A Partap Nagar Joudhpur and he had paid a sum of Rs.2,34.813/- (Ex. C-7) towards the repairing charges vide receipt dated 23.8.2013 issued by the Raja Hundai and Dhoot Service Pvt. Ltd. The complainant also placed on file the copy of bill in this regard but surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss of Rs.1,18,000/- and the  same has been sent to the bank of complainant Induland Bank with the loan account of complainant same is less amount. Now a sum of Rs.1,16,813/- remained due towards the loss of said vehicle and complainant is legally entitled to recover the same. 
6.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that  the surveyor of the opposite parties have settled the claim amount of Rs.1,18,000/- which had already been paid to the complainant as full and final payment. The counsel for opposite parties further argued that the complainant has not challenged the survey report nor any word has been mentioned against the surveyor that surveyor has wrongly assessed the loss of the vehicle. Even otherwise the opposite parties have appointed an Independent 
            Bhim Singh Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    …5…
Surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle of complainant. We also perused the surveyor report there is no lacuna has been found by  the surveyor  for which we can ascertain that there is any error in the survey report.  The surveyor has assessed the loss as mentioned in the final surveyor report dated 25.9.2013 the above said survey report has not been rebutted by the complainant by producing the cogent evidence. As per law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in the various judgment that the surveyor is the best person. 
7.    In view of the above said discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case and there is no deficiency in service established on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 29.7.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 Bhim Singh Vs. Chola Mandalam GIC etc.
                    
Present:-    Sh. J.S. Malik, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv.for opposite parties No.1&2.
            Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.3.

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  29.7.2016 for orders.
                                        President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        28.7.2016

Present:-    Sh. J.S. Malik, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. P.K. Batra, Adv.for opposite parties No.1&2.
            Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. for opposite party No.3.

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                             President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        29.7.2016