DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Cheema Brick Klin, Manakpur Sharif, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar, through its Prop. Sh. Harinder Singh Cheema.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, SCO 78-79, IInd Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Vikram Tandon, Adv. for the complainant

OP exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Cheema Brick Klin has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs against the opposite party :-

i)                   to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,22,906/-

ii)                to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as costs for damages suffered by the complainant

iii)              to also pay interest @ 18% per annm.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that it is owner of truck (Tata 1613) bearing registration No.PB-12-H-6733. The said truck was got insured from the opposite party for the period 3.11.2010 to 2.11.2011 and the complainant paid the requisite premium. 

                   According to the complainant, on 5.6.2011, the said truck met with an accident and was badly damaged.  Intimation was given to the opposite party regarding this accident and the vehicle was taken for repairs.  The repairer gave the estimated cost of repairs as Rs.2,18,178/- (C-3).  According to the complainant, the cowl shell was damaged and as per the repairer it was not repairable. The repairer had estimated the cost of the cowl shell at Rs.135,400/-.  The repairer sent an email to the opposite party intimating that the cowl shell is irreparable and sought permission for its replacement with a new one.  However, the opposite party replied that the surveyor and the opposite party are of the opinion that the cowl shell is repairable.  It was also mentioned in the reply that the request for replacement of cowl shell can be considered only if the same is endorsed from Tata Motors.  Thus, according to the complainant, the opposite party did not accept the report submitted by the repairer regarding the fact that the cowl shell is irreparable.  Rather it insisted that either the request should come from Tata Motors or the same should bear the endorsement of Tata Motors.  According to the complainant, it had no option but to get the vehicle repaired.  So, after getting the said vehicle repaired it paid the billed amount from its own sources.  Thereafter the complainant lodged claim.  However, the opposite party sent cheque of Rs.34,441/- which was returned by the complainant to the opposite party.  Later on, the cheque was again sent to the counsel for the complainant which was accepted by the ld. Counsel for the complainant. It has further been pleaded that the claim filed by the complainant was not accepted in totality.  So, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,22,906/- which was paid by it for repairs of the vehicle.  

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint ahs been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           The opposite party did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.8.2012.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           It is pertinent to mention here that in the entire complaint the complainant has not mentioned as to from where it got the said vehicle repaired.  The retail invoice dated 4.7.2011 is of Pasco Motors which is for Rs.1,66,406/- only.  The complainant has also placed on record another invoice dated 16.7.2011 for Rs.96,900/- issued by one Roshan Lal.  However, it is not made clear as to why the complainant got the vehicle again repaired on 16.7.2011 if the said vehicle was got repaired on 4.7.2011.

6.                           Furthermore, the question is as to whether the cowl shell was repairable or not.  The repairer sent an email (C-4) to the opposite party intimating that the said part is irreparable and sought permission for replacement of the same. However, the opposite party insisted that the part is repairable.  It has further been mentioned in the email that if the version that the cowl is irreparable is endorsed by the Tata Motors, they will consider its request.  The complainant never approached Tata Motors for getting endorsement of the said version.  No report from any expert has been placed on record to prove that the cowl shell was damaged and was irreparable.  Thus, from the material on record, it is not proved that the cowl shell was irreparable and needed replacement.  In these circumstances the opposite party was within its rights to refuse the claim for replacement of the cowl shell and the cheque for Rs.34,441/-, which was assessed loss of the damaged vehicle, was sent to the complainant which was accepted by his counsel.

7.                           In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.                           In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.09.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER