Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/812/2019

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.R.M Honda - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Vashisth

01 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 812 of 2019

                                                                Date of Institution    : 02.10.2019

                                                                Date of decision:      : 01.03.2024

 

Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Ramphal R/o village Sorkhi Tehsil Hansi and District Hisar at present resident of House No.1112 Sector-13 HUDA, Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Manager/Authorized Signatory, MRM Honda, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

2. Manager HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Leela Business Park, 6^th Floor, Andheri Kurla RD, Mumbai-40059.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. A.K. Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Kuldeep Legha, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Satender Kumar Ghanghas, Advocate for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that complainant is owner of vehicle Activa bearing regn. No. HR-21M-3945 and OP No.1 is authorized service provider. The vehicle was insured with OP No.2 vide policy No.2312100476614300000 w.e.f. 18.08.2019 to 17.08.2020 having package policy of ‘Zero Depreciation’.  On 22.08.2019, the vehicle met with an accident and it was sent to OP No.1 vide job sheet dated 22.08.2019.  On this day, OP No.2 insurance company was also informed about the accident. But the vehicle was not repaired by the OP No.1 awaiting approval of OP No.2.  So, complainant got served legal notice dated 01.09.2019 upon the OPs but of no avail, however, OP No.1 delivered the vehicle on 05.09.2019 and charged Rs.8805/- from complainant but the vehicle was not completely repaired and it was got repaired from Auto Market, Bhiwani from Krishan Kumar, Mechanic qua the denting work etc. who charged Rs.2300/- vide bill No.101 dated 05.09.2019. These bills were submitted to the OP No.2 but they released only Rs.4357/- to the complainant and refused for remaining amount despite various visits to their office which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant directing OP No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment. OP No.2 may be directed to pay Rs.6748/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its realization besides litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- Any other relief to which, this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 filed written statement stating that after the accident, the vehicle was entertained vide job card dated 22.08.2019 and after getting approved from OP No.2, the vehicle was repaired but the delay as alleged is not on the part of answering OP. Although complainant served legal notice dated 01.09.2019 but until then approval was pending and without approval no work could be done.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after proper final inspection.  The two separate invoices was made at the instance of complainant, one containing parts approved by the surveyor to claim for Rs.4616/- whereas another for Rs.4189/- that containing other parts not covered under the claim.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua deficiency in service, maintainability and suppression of true facts.  On merits, it is submitted that after receiving the information of the claim, OP insurance company deputed surveyor. After minute inspection, the surveyor approved damages which were correlated with cause of loss and did not asses those parts which were not correlated to the cause of accident, found to be old and rusted. As such, Rs.4357/- as assessed was paid to complainant. Receiving of legal notice and deficiency in serviced on the part of this OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                 Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Shweta Pokhriyal as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 and closed the evidence.

6.                 No evidence was tendered on behalf of OP No.1 despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, the same was closed vide order dated 25.09.2023.

7.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 Admittedly, the OP insurance company has released Rs.4357/- to the complainant.  However, as per complainant, his claim was for Rs.11,105/-. The amount so released by OP has been released to complainant on the basis of surveyor’s report (Annexure R-3).   We have gone through the surveyor’s report. It is hard to understand as to on what basis, the surveyor has deducted the amount from the bills which were issued by OP No.1-authorized service center for the vehicle. Further, no photographs/proof has been placed on record which could establish that some parts were not correlated to the cause of accident and were old and rusted. The OPs have also denied the amount so incurred by complainant on repairs of the vehicle from other than authorized service center which is for Rs.2300/- repairs. Learned counsel for OP No.2 in support of his case has relied upon case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Devender Malhotra Vs. UIIC & Anr. decided on 26.07.2016 reported in 2016(3) CLT wherein it is observed that ‘Insurance Claim-Surveyor report-Held- it is an established legal proposition that the report made by the surveyor, who is a professional in his field, cannot be disbelieved, unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so.’  Further reliance has been placed on a case titled Jose Manuel De Souza Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  decided by Hon’ble Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji reported in 2016(4) CLT.  We have gone carefully through these citations.

9.                 In view of the above, it is observed that complainant has incurred Rs.11,105/- on repairs of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4189/- (Annexure C-4), Rs.4616/- (Annexure C-5) and Rs.2300/- (Annexure C-8).  All the aforementioned bills are of one and the same date i.e. 05.09.2019 meaning thereby that the OPs have not completely repaired the vehicle of complainant, therefore, he has to go outside their workshop to get remaining work in the vehicle.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP No.2 insurance company has denied the genuine claim of complainant in an arbitrary and negligent manner for which he has to knock doors of this Commission. In the above situation, complainant must have caused monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within fourty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.6748/- (Rs. Six thousand seven hundred fourty eight) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 01.03.2024