BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM NUH (MEWAT).
Complaint No. 12 of 2016
Date of Instt: 18.9.2015
Date of decision:10.10.2017
Aziz son of Haji Hamid, aged 52 years, resident of ward No. 10, F.P. Jkhirka, District Mewat.
…..Complainant.
Versus
Future Generali, India Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Flot No. 303 to 310 Kailash 2G Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through it Divisional Manager.
….Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
BEFORE:- Sh. Rajbir Singh Dahiya, PRESIDENT
Smt. Urmil Beniwal, MEMBER
Smt. Kiran Bala, MENBER
Present:- Sh. Naseem Ahmad, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Ashok Gandhi, Adv. for the opposite party.
ORDER:- ( R. S. Dahiya, President)
The facts of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is a registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-27/J-0916, which was insured with the opposite party vide cover Note No. A9553603 commencing w.e.f. 15.5.2013 to 14.5.2014. The said vehicle was damaged in a road accident on 15.09.2011. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident telephonically as well as in writing. It is alleged that the damaged vehicle of the complainant inspected by the employee of the opposite party. On the assurance of the employee of the opposite party, the complainant spent a sum of Rs. 2 Lac on its repair. The complainant made many requests to the opposite party to pay the amount of bills, but the opposite party went on lingering the matter on one pretext to other. The complainant filed an application No. 637 of 2012 against the opposite party before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Gurgaon Camp Court at Nuh. Hence, the complaint may be accepted and the opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- to the complainant along with interest thereon.
2. On notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed written reply by contending that the complaint is false and frivolous as the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present compliant before the Hon’ble Forum. It is denied by the opposite party that the intimation regarding road side accident of the vehicle was sent by the complainant to him on telephone as well as in writing. It is also denied by the opposite party that the damaged vehicle of the complainant was inspected by the employees of the opposite party. It has been contended by the opposite party that as per the investigator report submitted by the counsel for respondent the investigator assessed the damage of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 19650/- and the insurance company is ready to pay the said amount, but the complainant is not ready to accept the amount. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint is prayed for.
3. In evidence, the complainant has produced the Estimate Ex. C1, Ex. C-7 Bills Ex. C2 to Ex. C6, Ex. C8 and Ex. C9, photos Ex. C10 to C18, copy of motor claim form Annexure C19,copy of cover note Annexure-C20, copies of national permit form Annexure-C21 and Annexure C22, copy of national permit Annexure-C23, copy of DL Annexure-C24 and copy of tehrir Annexur-C25 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has not produced any evidence on behalf of opposite party and the evidence of the opposite party has been closed by court order dated 18.8.2017.
4. We have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties. It is mentioned here that as per the investigator report submitted by the counsel for the opposite party, the investigator assess the damage of the vehicle to the tune Rs. 19650/- which is Annexure R6 and the insurance company was ready to pay the said amount towards damage of the vehicle of the complainant, but that amount is not acceptable to the applicant who has submitted bills of higher amount on the file regarding the repairs and replacements of the parts. Though there are as many as nine bills and estimates, which are Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 produced by the complainant, but many of them, are contradictory to each other. The damage of the vehicle and repair and replacement of various parts and Crain charges are on different scale in the documents of both the parties.
5. After going through the report of the investigator motor survey report, which is Annexure R6 and the documents of the complainant, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if we take a middle path. For that we take into account bill Ex. C9 which is amounting to Rs. 51040/-, the other parts mentioned in this bill are O.K. but the amount of 23640/- for window is wrong since no new window was purchased but only a repairing was done. So, we accept this bill after deducting an amount of Rs. 23640/-discussed above, that comes to Rs. 27400/-, after deprecation @ 25% it comes to Rs. 20650/ (Rs. 27650-Rs. 6750=20650/-). We also grant Rs. 3000/- (three thousand rupees only) for wind screen which is not included in Ex. C9. We also grant Rs. 2120/- (two thousand one hundred twenty rupees only) of electric wiring work as per Ex. C5. The amount of labour charges in the survey report are on lower side and the same charges are as claimed by the complainant on higher side. It would be in the fiteset of things that labour charges to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(twenty thousand rupees only) are granted. We also grant Rs. 4000/-(four thousand rupees only) towards towing charges. As such the total amount comes to Rs. 49770/- (Forty nine thousand seven hundred seventy rupees only) towards the repairing charges, replacement of parts and towing charges.
6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 49770/-(Forty nine thousand seven hundred seventy rupees only) to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the opposite party will pay the interest @ 9% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 49770/- from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 18.9.2015 till its payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on 10.10.2017
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
10.10.2017
