DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 117 of 3.4.2017
Decided on: 13.9.2017
Vivek Aggarwal s/o Sh.Ashok Aggarwal c/o Aggarwal Optical Co. Opposite Head Post Office, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Kohli Hyundai ,KGC Motors, Sanour Road, Patiala through its Proprietor.
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Leela Bhawan Market, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.P.S.Walia,Adv.counsel for complainant.
Sh.H.P.S.Verma, Adv.counsel for Op No.1.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Adv.counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Vivek Aggarwal, 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 the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To deliver the possession of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB11BX-5397 without getting any amount pre-paid
- To pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased H/Grand 1-10 Magna/2015 vehicle from OP no.1 on 3.3.2016. The said vehicle was duly insured from “Bumper to Bumper” for the period from 7.3.2016 to 6.3.2017 from OP No.2 after having paid Rs.13,549/-, being annual premium. The sum assured of the said vehicle was Rs.5,74,493/- .The nature of the policy was “cashless Policy”. The vehicle was duly registered at Patiala having registration No.PB- 11-BX-5397. It is averred that the said vehicle met with an accident on 3.3.2017 at about 8.30P.M. at Nabha Road, Patiala. The intimation to this effect was given to OP no.1 and the vehicle was got shifted to the workshop of OP no.1. Sh.Mandeep Kataria, Surveyor & Loss Assessor/Investigator, appointed by the insurance company prepared the assessment sheet to the net amount of Rs.81,986/-.The vehicle was repaired by OP No.1 but it failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle, it being demanded the amount of Rs.81,986/- from the complainant and also the cost of nuts and bolts etc. to the tune of Rs.8400/-inspite of the policy being cashless. The act and conduct of the OP no.1 not only amounted to deficiency in service but it also indulged into unfair trade practice which caused him mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their separate written versions .In the written version filed by Op No.1, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the car from it. It is stated that the vehicle was shifted to workshop of OP no.1 by the complainant claiming the same to have met with an accident..It is further stated that the vehicle was repaired in the workshop of Op no.1 and the complainant was bound to pay the charges for the services rendered by Op no.1.It is stated that the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant from OP no.2 and it has no concern as to whether the policy was cashless or not. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version, filed by Op no.2, it is stated that car bearing No.PB-11-BX-5397 was insured with it against Private Car Package Policy for the period from 7.3.2016 to 6.3.2017 for a sum of Rs.5.74 lacs , in the name of the complainant. It is stated that on receipt of the intimation of loss on 4.3.2017, Sh.Mandeep Kataria IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor Patiala was deputed to assess the loss who in his report dated 24.3.2017 assessed the same to the tune of Rs.81,986/-.The claim was settled on 30.3.2017 and a sum of Rs.81900/- was remitted through NEFT in the account of the complainant after deducting Rs.1596/- as TDS. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other allegations going against it, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
Sh.Rajinder Singh, Workshop Manager of Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed the evidence.
The Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt. Seema Goyal, Sr. Br.Manager of OP no.2 ,Ex.OPC, affidavit of Sh.Mandip Kataria, surveyor alongwith documents Exs.OP3 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the p[arties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The plea of the complainant is that his duly insured vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy and he left the said vehicle with Op no.1 for repair. The OP no.1 inspite of receipt of Rs.80,304/- from his insurer i.e. OP no.2, was asking him to pay the repair charges and refused to deliver the repaired car to him.
8. From the statement of account, placed on record by the ld. counsel for OP no.2 on 17.8.2017 , which was marked as ‘A’ it is apparent that the insurance company i.e. OP no.2 had transferred through NEFT an amount of Rs.80304/- on 30.3.2017, in the account K.G.C. Motors, i.e. OP no.1. As such OP no.2, cannot be said to deficient in providing service and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed. It may be stated that out of the repair amount of Rs.81,986/- as assessed by the surveyor, the OP no.2 has already paid Rs.80,304/- on 30.3.2017 and a meager amount of Rs.1682/- was left to be paid to it. As such, there was no reason for OP no.1 to not to deliver the repaired car to the complainant for just a meager amount to be paid. No such document has been placed on record by the OP no.1 to show that it asked the complainant to pay the said amount and the complainant refused to pay the same.As such we do not hesitate to conclude that OP no.1 has committed deficiency in service by not handing over the repaired car to the complainant. Due to said act of OP no.1, the complainant has suffered lot of inconvenience, mental agony and physical harassment, for which OP no.1 is certainly liable to compensate the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against op no.2 and allow the same against op No.1. The OP no.1 is directed in the following manner:
- To hand over the repaired vehicle to the complainant
- To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
It is made clear the OP No.1 shall pay compensation amount and litigation expenses, as awarded above after deducting the amount of Rs.1682/- within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.9. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
