Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 433.
Instituted on : 27.07.2017.
Decided on : 16.10.2019.
Ujjawal s/o sh. R.S.Yadav R/o V.P.O., Kharawar, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shri Durga Automobiles, 55 Rama Road New Delhi-110015 through its Manager.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi, through its Regional Manager.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., SCF-23 Secopnd Floor, Subhash Park, Near Indusind Bank, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sehdev Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Bhupesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Behl, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of Mahindra & Mahindra Scorpio BS-IV vehicle bearing registration No.HR-14L-9863. That the above said vehicle of the complainant was insured with respondent No.2. That on 12.09.2016 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and was taken to workshop of respondent no.1 on 13.09.2016. That complainant duly informed the officials of the insurance company regarding the accident. That since 13.09.2016, the vehicle in question is standing in the workshop of respondent no.1 and the complainant completed all the required formalities for repairing the vehicle. But the vehicle has not been repaired so far. That complainant requested the opposite parties many times but after repeated requests, respondents did not disburse the amount of claim. That the act of opposite parties of not repairing the vehicle and not disbursing the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to properly repair the vehicle in question and remove all the defects to the entire satisfaction of complainant and to give delivery of the vehicle.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the car in question was brought in a non-startable condition by one Mr. Naveen as evinced from the repair order appended to the list of documents filed with the present reply. The car was found hit from the front-side in need of extensive repairs. The opposite party herein issued an estimate of repairs. That the subject car was put to repair & repair invoice in the sum of Rs.549091/- was drawn though in the name of one Mr. Ashok appearing as the owner as per Mahindra Dealer Information System. The opposite party herein understands that the car was bought by the current owner &/or complainant from the said individual although former’s name was not entered in the Mahindra Dealer Information System. The cost in the tune of Rs.475000/- was paid for by the insurer-opposite party leaving the rest to be paid by the insured by way of depreciation &/or exclusionary costs. This remainder in the sum of Rs.70000/- was paid on 29th September, 2017 & delivery of the car taken thereafter. That the complaint ostensibly is an offshoot of some dispute inter se complainant herein & said Mr. Naveen. The latter therefore, warrants being added as a necessary party to the instant complaint. That the opposite party is no more in possession of the physical delivery of the car, the same having been delivered to said Mr. Naveen on 29th September, 2017 vide delivery receipt of even date. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite parties.
3. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of information as regards the alleged damages to the vehicle company had deputed M/s AAY BEE ASSO. Surveyor and loss Assessor duly licensed by the IRDA a statutory body who has assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.475000/- to the repairer Shri Durga Automobiles as per the satisfaction of insured. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 10.12.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 and closed his evidence on 30.05.2019. Ld. counsel for OP no.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on 20.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to hand over the car to the complainant and further prayed that the amount be paid by the insurance company regarding the repair of the vehicle. After bare perusal of all the relevant documents placed on record by the complainant and the opposite parties, we came to the conclusion that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on dated 12.09.2016 and same was brought to the service station i.e. Sh. Durga Automobiles on dated 13.09.2016 by one Naveen. A manual repair order was prepared on the same day and the same was signed by the Naveen alongwith his mobile number. Thereafter a claim form was submitted which was signed by the complainant. The vehicle was repaired by the respondent no.1 and the amount of Rs.475000/- has been paid by the insurance company to Sh. Durga Automobiles, New Delhi on dated 05.05.2017. The difference of the repair amount i.e. Rs.70000/- was also paid by the Naveen on dated 29.09.2017. As per respondent no.1, the amount of Rs.475000/- has been paid by the respondent no.2 & 3 on 05.05.2017 and Rs.70000/- on dated 29.09.2017 by the Naveen. As per respondent no.1, the vehicle has been handed over to one Naveen on dated 29.09.2017. The payment of Rs.70000/- was also made on the same day. Meaning thereby one Naveen s/o Sh. Rajbir Singh had received the vehicle in question from the respondent no.1. As per respondent no.1, the vehicle was brought by Naveen and the same was handed over to him on 29.09.2017 and receipt had been issued by the Naveen which is Ex.R1/6.
7. In the present case claim form was submitted by the complainant and detail of driver has been mentioned in column no.5 of the same. The complaisant disclosed the name of driver as Naveen and relation with the insurer has been mentioned as relative. Meaning thereby, the Naveen is the known person of the complainant. This fact has been proved from the claim form itself. The address of Naveen has been mentioned in claim form as Ex.RZ-64 M-Block D Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. This address is the same which is mentioned in the driving licence of Naveen, which was handed over by the complainant to the repairer as well as to the insurance company. The license placed on record is Ex.R1/3. After perusal of all the documents we came to the conclusion that the dispute is between Ujjawal i.e. complainant and one Naveen, who bring the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 and also taken the same from the opposite party No.1 after making the payment regarding the possession of the vehicle. This Forum has no jurisdiction regarding possession. So far as the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 is concerned, the complainant has not disclosed any relevant fact that as and when he approached the respondent no.1 regarding the repair of the vehicle, or he had made any payment to the respondent no1. i.e. difference of repair amount (amount paid by the insurance company and the actual cost of the repair). Meaning thereby, there is some dispute between the complainant and one Naveen which cannot be adjudicate in the present Forum. Moreover, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.10.2019.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
