BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.79/2016.
Date of instt.: 17.3.2016.
Date of Decision: 10.6.2016
Dayal Chand son of Sh.Hukam Singh resident of VPO Khurana, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- LR Hundai, authorized delaer Hyundai Motor N.H-65 Ambala road Kaithal through its authorized person, Kaithal.
- United India Insurance Company Limited SCO-53, Sector-26-D, Chandigarh through its authorized person.
- Naresh @ Kala son of Sh.Zile Ram Sharma resident of Dubbal, District Kaithal
- United India Insurance Company Limited, Kaithal through its authorized person.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh.Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Surender Gorsi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the opposite party NO.1.
Sh. Satish Malhotra, A.O. alongwith Sh.Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties No.2 & 4.
Sh. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is the owner of car make Hyundai Verna bearing registration No.HR-08-Q-0111 and the said care is insured with OP No.2 under cash less policy through OP No.3 vide policy No.1102043115P109285490 w.e.f 10.11.2015 to 9.11.2016. He further stated that the said car met with an accident on 31.12.2015 near Circuit House Chowk, Kurukshetra when a stray cow suddenly came in front of the car while the same being driven by Vijender son of Sh.Randhir Singh resident of village Kurar who was coming from Ambala to Kaithal. A DDR was also got lodged bearing No.14 dated 31.12.2015 at Police post Sector-7, Kurukshetra. He further stated that the car was insured by Op No.2 under cash less policy, at the behest of OP NO.2 & 3 the said damaged car was taken to service centre of OP No.1 on dated 31.12.2015. He further stated that when the car was taken to OP No.1. The OPs got the surveyor deputed who assessed the loss of damaged car to the tune of Rs.4,63,542/-. He further stated that Ops started harassing him on one pretest or the other and started pressurizing him that he shall have to get sent one mail from OP No.2 or in alternate, he shall have to deposit whole estimate amount as assessed by surveyor. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and OP NO.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections; that the this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant did not come with clean hand; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum; that the complainant is estoppel from filing the present complaint. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The present complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer that OP No.1 be directed to repair the car bearing registration No. HR-08Q-0111 under the insurance policy within seven days and alongwith the complaint the complainant had file an application for interim direction. Obviously this Forum on dated 8.4.2015 issued direction to OP No.1 to start the repair work of above said car and the same be repaired fully at the earliest and latest within one month. OP No.1 has repaired the car accordingly. 4. Now, the complainant moved another application dated 20.5.2016 stating therein that the OP No.1 has repaired the car fully, but refused to deliver the car to the applicant/complainant. Reply to the application has been given by the OP No.1. It is admitted by OP No.1 that the car has been fully repaired.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Learned counsel for Op No.1 stated that the car in question has been repaired and the complainant can take the delivery of the same after making the payment and the complainant can take claim himself from the insurance Company. He further stated that the Insurance Company will take time in passing the claim and if the delivery of the car is not taken by the complainant then the complainant will be liable for parking charges. He further stated that the prayer of the complainant has been completed and the complaint has become infractuous. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that in this case learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made a statement that they will make the payment direct to the OP No.1 as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy of the car in question. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant is also entitled for the compensation for harassment.
7. From the application dated 20.5.2016 and its reply, it is clear that the car in question has been repaired and we are of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case, the complaint of the complainant has become infractuous.
8. In view of the above discussions, we allow the application dated 20.5.2016 of the complainant and direct to the Op No.1 to deliver the car in question to the complainant subject to the condition that the complainant will make the entire payment of the costs of repair and claim the same himself from the insurance company. However, the Insurance Company (OP No.4) is hereby directed to make the payment of the claim of the repair of the car in question direct to the complainant and the complainant if found any deficiency in service by the Insurance Company in that case complainant is at liberty to file afresh complaint for the same.
9. In view of the above, the complaint of the complainant has become infractuous, hence the same is hereby dismissed being infractuous. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt. 10.06.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
Dyal Chand versus L.R.Hyundai etc.
Present : Sh. Surender Gorsi, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the opposite party NO.1.
Sh. Satish Malhotra, A.O. alongwith Sh.Nikhil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties No.2 & 4.
Sh. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
Arguments heard on the application dated 20.5.2016. Vide our separate detailed order, the complaint is hereby dismissed being infractuous. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
President
10.6.2016
Member Member
Dyal Chand versus L.R.Hyundai etc.
Present : Sh. Ankur Dhiman, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Sunil Dhull Adv. for the Op No.1.
Sh.Vinod Bura, Advocate for Op No.2.
OP No.3 already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order, the complaint is hereby allowed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
President
10.6.2016
Member Member
