IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 11.08.2014
First Appeal- 864/2009
(Arising out of the order dated 16.10.2009 passed in Complainant Case No. 850/2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi.)
In the matter of:
Sh. Munni Lal Singh,
Son of Sh. Raghubar Singh,
R/o, B-33/9, Gagan Vihar,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. ….Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Him Motors (P) Ltd.
338, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-110092.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch New Punjabi Bagh Flyover,
9, Tranport Centre,
New Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110035. ….Respondent
CORAM
S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)
S.C.Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)
1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter called the Act).
2. Relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are that complainant is the owner of a Tata Indica car No. DL 4CU 9564. He got it insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. OP-2, vide policy No. 222701/31/07/000284 for the period of 16.02.2008 to 15.02.2009. Unfortunately, this car met with an accident on 24.06.2008, causing extensive damage to the car. It was towed to M/s Him Motors Pvt. Ltd (OP-1) for repairs on 25.06.2008. The vehicle was repaired by Respondent-1 who issued an invoice of repair for Rs. 2,25,140/-.
3. On receipt of information of the accident, OP-2 Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the damage of loss. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 1,30,000/-. The complainant contacted OP-1 for delivery of the repaired vehicle but he delayed the delivery on the pretext that he has not received payment from the OP-2. Left with no choice the complainant sent legal notice to OPs on 01.11.2008 calling upon OP-1 to hand over physical possession of the repaired car and also for payment of compensation but the OPs failed to comply with the notice. Therefore, forum was requested to direct the OPs to hand over delivery of the repaired vehicle and also to pay damage of 1,00,000/- along with compensation for recurring losses suffered by complainant. The OPs were issued notices. They filed separate written statements.
4. As per version of OP-1 car in question had been repaired and was lying ready for delivery since 25.08.2008 but the complainant failed to make payment of repairing charges and take delivery of the vehicle. But it was submitted that since the complainant has failed to take delivery of the vehicle, he was liable to pay parking charges Rs. 200/- per day w.e.f. 30.08.2008, when invoice of repaired charges was issued. OP-1 further submitted that they received cheque dated 22.01.2009 for Rs. 1,30,000/- from OP-2 and that complainant too paid Rs. 95,000/- on 16.02.2009. The OP-1 also waived off parking/holding charges on the promise of the complainant to withdraw the complaint against OP-1. The OP-1 further claimed that complainant was clearly informed that extensive damage has been caused to the car and depreciation of plastic part would be to the extent of 50% and metal part 5%. OP-1 also made it clear that it would be in a position to deliver the car after repair on payment of depreciation by the complainant and issuance of delivery order by the insurer.
5. In its WS OP-2 stated that on getting information of accident a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The insured had availed cashless facility and got the vehicle repaired from OP-1 and as such the entire charges have been paid by OP-2 to OP-1. The complainant filed rejoinder. Parities also led evidence in support of their cases. On the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, the Ld. DCDRF (East) Convenience Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave came to the conclusion that no deficiency of service was found against OP-1. However, OP-2 was found deficient of providing service as it considerably delayed the payment of assessed loss causing unnecessary delay in delivery of the repaired vehicle. OP was therefore directed to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs.
6. Complainant felt aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Ld. DCDRF and preferred this appeal before this Commission, inter-alia, on the ground that the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 passed by the DCDRF (East) was erroneous in as much as on the one hand the Ld. District Forum held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs/Respondents and on the other hand warded a meagre compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards harassment and Rs. 3,000/- toward costs. Certainly, there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the Ld. DCDRF ought to have held both the OPs liable. The Ld. Distt. Forum further erred in holding that balance amount of appeal/invoice was to be paid by the complainant. According to the complainant/appellant when the vehicle was fully ensured, respondent-2 Insurance Company was liable to make payment of entire amount for repair of the damaged vehicle. The Forum further ignored the fact that respondent-2 took a long time in settleling the claim of the appellant and the complainant/appellant had to suffer a great deal of mental pain and agony. Yet the Ld. Forum awarded a very small amount of Rs. 10,000/- on this account. The Ld. District Forum ought to have awarded an adequate or appropriate amount of compensation of at least Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 was erroneous and was liable to set aside.
7. No reply was filed on behalf OP-1/Respondent-1. However, OP-2/Respondent-2 filed reply. It was stated that entire amount of loss assessed by the surveyor (Rs. 1,30,000/-) was fully paid to the OP-1 M/s Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 22.01.2009. The Ld. DCDRF decide the matter on the basis of evidence on record and it does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It was to be kept in account that there was no inordinate delay in payment of assessed loss. In any case the payment was paid within 3 months from the receipt of the surveyor’s report. The balance amount of Rs. 95,000/- was paid by the complainant/appellant on 16.02.2009 to respondent-1 and the repaired vehicle was immediately handed over to the complainant/appellant. There is no force in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.
8) We have also heard Ld. Counsel for the respondent-1. There was none for respondent-2 and therefore United India Insurance Co. could not be heard.
9) The repairer M/s Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. issued invoice dated 30.08.2008 addressed to complainant for Rs 2,25,140/-. Out of this, OP-2 Insurance Company paid Rs. 1,30,000/- assessed by the surveyor. The balance of Rs. 95,140/- (95,000/- in round figure) was responsibility of the complainant/appellant. The contract of Insurance was between the insurer OP-2 and insured complainant. Therefore, it was primary duty of the complainant to settle the matter of payment with OP-2. OP-1 on its part, was only expected to deliver the vehicle after receiving the full payment of repair expenses. Therefore, Ld. DCDRF rightly held that no deficiency of service was committed by OP-1.
10. The vehicle was ready for delivery on 30.08.2008 the payment to OP-1 was made by Insurance Company on 22.07.2009 after getting legal notice from the complainant/appellant. No comfort letter was issued by OP-2 to OP-1 for delivery of the repaired vehicle to complainant. Under the circumstances, the Ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that there was some delay on the part of Insurance Company OP-2 and therefore an appropriate amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed and Rs. 3000/- was awarded toward costs.
11. In our considered view, the impugned judgment/order 16.10.2009 does not require any interference and is hereby confirmed.
12. Let a copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of cost as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
