Haryana

StateCommission

A/607/2019

DR. CHAND SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GALAXY TOYOTA PRIVATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KETAN ANTIL

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.607 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 03.07.2019

                                                         Date of Final hearing: 10.02.2023

Date of pronouncement: 13.03.2023

 

Dr. Chand Singh S/o Prithvi Singh since deceased through his wife Pushpa Rani aged 55 years, R/o Kabirpur Road, opposite Anand Cinema,Sonipat, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Galaxy Toyota Private Ltd. Khanra No.31/16, GT Karnal Road, Kundli, Sonipat, 1331028 through its Manager.
2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd., and Head Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and Divisional Office at 204-R Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat 131001, through its Senior Divisional Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Ketan Antil, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Harsh Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent  No.1.

                   Mr.Ram Avtar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           Delay of  67 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that  complainant was the registered owner of Toyota Etios bearing registration No.HR 10W 0258, which was insured with the opposite party No.2. The insurance policy  was valid from 20.12.2016 to 19.12.2017.  Unfortunately on 13.09.2017, vehicle met with an accident and got extensively damaged.  Intimation was given to the OP No.2.  Following which, surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and rough estimate of repair was prepared to the tune of
Rs.2,06,311/-. OP No.1 prepared the estimate of repair dated 13.09.2017. The vehicle was not repaired because the some of its spare parts were not available with OP No.1. Therefore he requested the OPs to pay for compensation, however, the OP asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.15318/- for the settlement of the claim which were also paid by the complainant on 17.11.2017.  OPs again assured the delivery of the vehicle in the next 3/4working days.  The complainant paid the demanded amount and completed other formalities for the claim settlement  but the OPs again failed to deliver the vehicle as promised, without any reasonable and justified cause.  The complainant has been using a hired vehicle since 01.10.2017 thereby resulting into a financial loss to the complainant as he has to pay Rs.15,000/- approximately per month for this hired vehicle. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Notice issued to the OPs and filed separate reply.  OP No.1 submitted that   the vehicle was brought on 13.09.2017 for its necessary repairs. The cost of repair was credited to the repairer by him on 17.11.2017.  On 01.01.2018, the vehicle was handed over to him by OP No.1.  The car was ready for its delivery to the complainant on 31.10.2017 subject to payment of cost of repair of Rs.1,97,929/-. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1  and dismissing the complaint as prayed for.

4.      OP No.2 submitted that whatever amount was assessed by surveyor has been paid by OP No.2 to OP No.1. The final survey of the vehicle was conducted by Ametek Insurance surveyors and loss Assessor. The entire recommended repair amount was paid by OP No.2 to  OP No.1. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and sought dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.  

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Sonepat allowed the complaint vide order dated 19.03.2019. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent No.2 insurance company to pay Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as compensation to the complainant for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and for rendering deficient services to the complainant. With these observations, findings  and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent No.2 insurance company.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

7.      Argument were advanced by Sh.Ketan Antil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Harsh Kapoor, General Manager for the respondent No.1 as well as Mr.Ram Avtar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including the evidence led on behalf of both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      It is not disputed that during the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident.  It is also not disputed that the vehicle got damaged. Perusal of the record shows that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,611/-, which was paid by insurance company to Glaxy Automobile on 05.01.2018 through NEFT. As per the photographs available on the file, which clearly shows that the vehicle was extensively damaged.  Ex.RW2/3 is also relevant, which shows that the cashless claim was allowed. Since, the final survey was conducted on 07.11.2017 but the payment was made to the repairer on 05.01.2018 i.e. after two months, but it is the responsibility of the insurance company to pay the assessed amount to the repairer immediately.  The compensation allowed by the learned District Forum is on lower side, which need to be enhanced.  In our view, the amount passed by the learned District Commission is on lower side, which stands enhanced to Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.5000/-. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

9.      Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

13th  March, 2023   Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)