Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/84

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lally Motors India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Goel Adv.

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                             C.C. No:84 of 09.02.2015

                                                                        Date of Decision:27.02.2015

Manjit Kaur w/o Mr.Taranjit Singh r/o 24-B, Model Town, Behind Lal Kothi, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus 

1.The Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer of Wolkswagon G.T.Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana through its Director.

2.National Insurance Company, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

 

                   Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.                       

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

         

Present:       Sh.Sunil Goel, Advocate for complainant.

 

                          ORDER 

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Heard on the point of admissibility of the complaint. Perusal of the complaint reveals that Mrs.Manjit Kaur(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against The Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer of Wolkswagon G.T.Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana through its Director and others(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Ops’) with the brief averments that the complainant is owner of Make Wolkswagon Polo 1.2 CR Comfortii bearing registration No.PB-10-AG-0038 which was purchased from OP1 in the month of September, 2011. In the month of January, 2013 the car of the complainant met with an accident and the same was badly damaged. After the accident, the complainant immediately approached the Ops for further action and accordingly, Ops advised the complainant to get the vehicle repair in workshop of OP1, to which, the complainant had agreed and had sent the vehicle at the workshop of OP1. Surveyor OP2 had inspected the vehicle and did the necessary formalities and submitted his report and OP1 had given the estimate of Rs.4,94,068.17P plus taxes dated 21.1.2013. However, the claim was not settled and as a result of which, earlier the complainant had filed the complaint No.678 of 11.9.2013 against the Ops which was allowed against OP2 only and the OP2 was directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, failing which, OP2 was liable to pay the interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till its realization. Further, OP2 was directed to pay litigation costs of RS.4000/- alongwith parking charges, if any to the complainant and no order of compensation was passed. It is further averred in the complaint that OP2 deposited Rs.2,34,800/- with this Forum alongwith litigation cost of RS.4000/-, whereas, the said amount is not in accordance with the spirit of order as well as of the bill of OP1. Infact, the Op2 without taking the final bill of repair from OP1 succeeded in settle the claim. As per the complainant, the OP2 is liable to pay the parking charges of Rs.1,57,750/- as claimed by the OP1 vide estimation dated 21.1.2013 but the Op has not given any details of the piad amount of Rs.2,34,800/-.  Further, OP1 ha claimed Rs.5,03,015.66P plus taxes but the OP2 has paid only Rs.2,34,800/- as such, they are liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,68,215.66/- as per bills based on actual expenditure incurred on the vehicle. The complainant came to know through RTI Information dated 26.11.2014 that the OP2 has deposited Rs.2,34,8000/- with this District Forum without giving any intimation to the complainant regarding paying of Rs.2,34,800/- against the actual expenditure of RS.5,03,015.66P plus taxes and plus parking charges of Rs.1,15,570/- and the same is recurring one. In this way, Op2 again rendered deficient and negligent services by not complying the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Forum and made prayer for the issuance of directions to the OP2 to pay the parking charges of Rs.1,15,750/- and future parking charges, if any, besides Rs.2,68,215.66P alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till realization of the entire amount and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1 lakh as compensation to the complainant.

2.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record judgments titled as Mallikarjun Sakri vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and another-2014(1)CPJ-490(N.C.) and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar-2009(8)JT-141(S.C.).

3.                Complainant has placed on record the copy of order dated 26.3.2014 which was passed in complaint No.678 of 11.9.2013, vide which, the complaint was allowed against OP2 only and it was ordered that OP2 was directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, failing which, OP2 was liable to pay the interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till its realization. For causing harassment and sufferance, further, OP2 was directed to pay litigation costs of RS.4000/- alongwith parking charges, if any, to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation was passed. Order was ordered to be to complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the said order.

4.                It appears from this copy of order that claim of the complainant was ordered to be settled and paid by the OP2 as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that parking charges has not been paid by the OP2. However, the copy of order dated 26.3.2014 reveals that specific directions were given to the OP2 to pay the parking charges, if any, to the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant has himself placed on record the copy of survey report, vide which, loss of the vehicle was assessed to Rs.2,34,800/- by the surveyor namely R.P.Gupta & Company, who had submitted his detailed report qua the assessment of loss. As per the averments of the complaint that the OP2 had already deposited this amount of Rs.2,34,800/- with this Forum. So, if there is any amount due, which has not paid by the OP2, then the complainant can get the same recovered by way of filing an Execution Application. However, second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable under any law.

5.                So, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is not admitted for hearing being barred by law. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L.Ahuja)

            Member                Member                       President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.02.2015

(Gurpreet Sharma)