Haryana

Karnal

233/2013

Ashish Deswal S/o Jagmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, United India Insurance Company., Malwa Carzone Pvt. Ltd., Nissan Motor India Pvt. L - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Sangwan

01 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.233 of 2013

                                                           Date of Instt. 15.05.2013

                                                           Date of decision: 11.03.2015

 

Ashish Deswal son of Sh.Jagmal Singh resident of House No.25, Sector 5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                     ……..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.General Manager, United India Insuranceco. Ltd. Registered office 24, Whites Road, Chennai 600014.

 

2.Malwa Carzone Pvt.Ltd.NH -1, 118/1 Km Stone, GT Road, Karnal (Haryana)132001.

 

3.Nissan Motors India Pvt.Ltd. Plot No.1A, SIPCOT Industrial Park, mattur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram (District) – 6-2105 , Tamilnadu, India.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before           Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                    Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma       ……Member.

 

Argued by:-  Sh.M.R.Sangwan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for OP No.2.

                   Sh.Vinod Dogra Advocate for OP no.3.

                   OP No.1 ex parte.

 ORDER

           

                        In brief the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in services on the their part on the allegations that the complainant purchased new  Nissan Micra Car bearing registration No. HR-07R-9525 from OP No.2  who is sale and service dealer of OP No.3 and the same was got insured from the  OP No.1 w.e.f. 16.3.2012 to 15.3.2013. The insurance policy was cashless policy i.e.  0%  depreciation.    That on 15.1.2013 the said car met with an accident  and the complainant informed the OP no. 1 and 2 about the same  and the car was transported to the agency of OP No.2. On 25.2.2013 the complainant was called by OPNo.2 to take the delivery of the car after repairs but an amount of Rs.7500/- was charged by the OP No.2 from the complainant which was illegal because the insurance policy was a cash less policy with  0% depreciation. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the  Ops be directed to refund the said  amount of Rs.7500/- charged from the complainant and has prayed for payment of compensation for the harassment caused to him and for the legal fee and litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith some other documents.

 

2.                On notice the OP No.1 failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.4.2014.

 

                   The OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant was  estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that the said vehicle was repaired at the instructions of the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.7500/- to the answering on account of depreciation charges, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, it was contended that there was no d efficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

                   The OP no.3 has also filed the written statement almost on the same lines as has been filed by the answering OP No.3.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                From the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence eon the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on their parts on the allegations that he purchased the car bearing registration No. HR-07R-9525 and the same was got insured from OP No.1 w.e.f. 16.3.2012 to 15.3.2013 and the insurance policy was cashless policy as well as the same was zero % depreciation policy. The said car met with an accident on 15.1.2013 and the complainant informed the Ops.  However, on 25.2.2013 the OP No.2 asked the complainant to take the delivery of the car and the OP No.2 gave delivery of the car to the complainant after charging an amount of Rs.7500/- despite the fact that the car was insured with cashless and zero % depreciation policy and as such the sum of  Rs.7500/- has been charged  in an illegal manner which tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

                   However, as per contention of OP No.2, the amount of Rs.7500/- has been charged legally in view of the report dated 25.2.2013 of  the Surveyor and if it was a zero per cent depreciation policy, then it was for the insurance company to   reimburse the said amount.

 

                   However, the OP No.1 insurer remained ex parte.

 

5.                Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that car No. HR-07R-9525 of the complainant met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy Ex.C2. The said car was got  repaired from OP No.2  and the OP No.2 issued the bill for Rs.69370 Ex.C3.The OP No.2 has  charged a sum of Rs.7500/- as shown in Ex.C4 in view of the letter dated 25.2.2013 issued by the surveyor.

 

                   There is no dispute regarding the bill issued by the OP No.2.  The dispute pertains to the deduction of Rs.7500/- from the total bill of repairs issued by the OP No.2 and the said amount of Rs.7500/- has been deducted on account of depreciation in view of the report of surveyor appointed by the Insurer- OP No.1. However, from the terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.C2, it emerges that depreciation has been mentioned as NILL. Therefore, deduction of depreciation to the tune of Rs.7500/- at the instance of insurer-OP No.1 as mentioned in the  surveyor report dated 25.2.2013  was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1.

 

6.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay a  sum of Rs.7500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.5.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a  sum of Rs.2500/-  as compensation for the harassment caused to him and  the legal fee and litigation expenses. The OP No.1 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 11.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Argued by:-  Sh.M.R.Sangwan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for OP No.2.

                    Sh.Vinod Dogra Advocate for OP no.3.

                   OP No.1 ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated: 11.03.2015                                                                        

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.