Haryana

Ambala

CC/336/2018

Komal Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Globe Automobiles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Batra

19 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  336 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution   :   09.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision      :   19.08.2021.

                     

Komal Parkash s/o Sh. Vashdev, village Jagatpura, P.O. Dharamgarh, SAS Nagar, Mohali(Pb.) 160071

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

 

1. Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Springfield School, NH.22, Baldev Nagar, VPO Sadopur, Distt. Ambala, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Office(35502) Ambala City, Civil Lines, Arya Chowk, Above OBC Bank, Ambala City-134003, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Bldg., Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Sh. Narinder Batra, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri G.S. Antal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2&3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.15,141/- toward repair charges of the vehicle.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation and any other relief also be granted to complainant.

2.           The crux of the case are that the complainant wanted to purchase a tourist cab for commercial purposes  in order to earn his livelihood for self-employment and as such he approached OP no.1 being Authorized Dealer of TOYOTA ETIOS. The complainant was not having complete amount of the cab as such got hypothecated with A.U Finance India Ltd. OP no.1 induced the complainant that he will get vehicle insured with OPs no.2 and 3 and on inducement of OP no.2 complainant became ready to get his new tourist motor cab insured with OPs no.2 and 3 and OP no.2 took Rs. 28,200/- on account of total premium of said motor cab make Toyota/Etios Model 2016 bearing Engine no. INDI454249, Chassis no. MBJB49BTX00130479 against policy no. 35350231160300002706 issued on 23.05.2016 having validity w.e.f. 20.05.2016 to 19.05.2017. At the time of getting insurance of said car done from OPs, he was disclosed that it is cashless policy. Unfortunately, the motor cab in question met with a road side accident on 13.10.2016 at Chandigarh Light Point. There was no injury to any person in this vehicle at the time of accident. There was no third party property damages in this accident.  There is no police case in the said accident. He accordingly informed OPs on 15.10.2016 and OPs assured him that damages of the cab will be prepared within 3-4 days. The complainant visited the office of OPs many times for his claim but of no use. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, OPs are bound to pay the repair charges.  Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant. The complainant does not disclose his grievance regarding any deficiency in service. On merits, it was averred that the vehicle in question was repaired by OP and tax invoice of Rs.1,00,772/- was issued towards repair work out of which insurance co. OP no.2 approves the claim of Rs.85,631/-  and amount of Rs.15,141/- was to be recovered from complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,141/- without any protest and took the vehicle in question after getting it repaired. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.           Upon notice, OPs No.2 and 3 appeared and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant already settled by OPs. On merits, it was averred that the policy in question was issued subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  It was a cashless insurance policy but in the event of any claim, the insurance company was only liable to pay the sum assessed by the surveyor and rest of the amount like excess clause and depreciation amount and also for the loss not associated with the occurrence has to be borne by the complainant himself as per terms of the insurance policy.  The surveyor assessed the loss to the said vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.83,556/- subject to approval of the claim. After considering the said claim  in the light of survey report, the competent authority approved the claim in question of Rs.83,556/- and payment was released to him on 11.11.2016 as full and final payment of his claim. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs no.2 and 3 and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.            Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Neeraj Bali, Head Customer Relations, on behalf of OP No.1 as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to Annexure OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Shri K.K. Sachdeva Manager and Authorized Signatory, New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Ambala and Shri Sudhir Dhingra, Surveyor and loss assessor having its office at 13, Prem Nagar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP2/A and OP2/B respectively along with documents Annexure OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 and 3.

 

6.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

7.           The glance of evidence is required for adjudication of the case. The complainant has relied upon his affidavit Annexure C-A on the record. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He averred that unfortunately cab in question met with an accident on 13.10.2016 at Chandigarh Light Point. Intimation to this accident was given by him to the OPs and they assured to pay the repair charges of Rs.15,141/- but they did not pay the said amount. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 are job card of different dates.  Annexure C-4 is copy of legal notice served upon OPs. Annexure C-5 to Annexure C-7 are postal receipts thereof. Annexure C-8 is copy of cashless claim against  policy in question for Rs.83556/-. This amount was assessed by the surveyor Mr. Sudhir Dhingra, which is placed on the record. Annexure C-9 is copy of insurance policy, which is valid from 20.05.2016 to 20.05.2017. In which IDV is mentioned as Rs.7,50,668/-. Further copy of insurance policy Annexure C-10 which is valid from 20.05.2016 to 19.05.2017.  Annexure C-14 is copy of gate pass dated 17.04.2016. Annexure C-15 is copy of gate pass dated 30.10.2016. Annexure C-16 is bank receipt of Rs.15141/- dated 11.11.2016. This amount was received by Globe Toyota i.e. OP no.1.

8.           To counter this evidence of complainant, OP no.1 relied upon affidavit of Neeraj Bali Head Customer Relations of Globe Automobiles i.e. OP No. 1 as Annexure.OP-1/A. This witness denied any deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1. This witness stated that the claim amount of Rs.85,631/- was approved by OP no.2 and amount of Rs.15,141/- was to be recovered from the complainant, which he claimed.  Delivery order issued by OP no.2 and after receiving the amount of Rs.15,141/- the vehicle released to the complainant.

9.           OPs No.2 and 3 relied upon affidavit of K.K. Sachdeva Manager and Authorized signatory as Annexure OP-2/A on the record.  This witness stated that on intimation of the accident, OPs deputed the surveyor Mr. Sudhir Dhingra and after considering the same he assessed the loss. Annexure OP-2/2 is copy of payment voucher of Rs.83556/-. Annexure OP-2/3 is document of OPs in which, the assessment of loss as per survey report is Rs.89131.00, less excess clause is Rs.3500/-, less salvage clause is Rs.2075/- and net liability on repair basis is Rs.83556.00.

10.                   From the perusal of invoice dated 28.10.2016, Annexure C-3, it is evident that the Globe Toyota has raised a bill for the repair of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.1,00,772/-. Out of the said amount insurance company i.e OPs No.2 & 3 paid of Rs.85,631/-, as assessed by the surveyor, to the repairer and rest of the amount of Rs.15,141/-, was paid by the complainant. From the perusal of the surveyor report Annexure OP2/4, it is evident that it is a well explained and detailed one. No evidence was produced, on the record, to rebut the report of the surveyor. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deen Dayal, II (2009) CPJ, 45 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the surveyor’s report being important document cannot be brushed aside lightly without any material to contrary on record. Since the OPs No.2 and 3 have already paid the repair charges of Rs.85,631/-, as assessed by the surveyor, to the OP No.1, therefore they are not liable to pay Rs.15,141/- as sought for by the complainant in the prayer clause.  

                    Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that we do not find any substance in the submissions of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 19.08.2021.

 

     (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)              Member                                 Member             President