Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/823/2022

SANJAY KUMAR JANGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR , CHARISMA GOLDWHEELS PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/823/2022
Date of Institution	:	22/09/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/04/2024

 

Sanjay Kumar Jangra, S/o Satbir Singh Jangra, R/o CEN-322, Near Airport Chowk, Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.7, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Sanjeev Manocha, Surveyor, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2939-40, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hyundai Nodal Office DO, 113000, Moti Mahal, 6^th Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-4000920 through its Divisional Manager.

     Branch Office: New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO 2939-40, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1 (through VC).
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for OP No.3 (through VC).

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is owner of Hyundai i-20 car and the said vehicle is duly insured with OP No.3 through OP No.1. The said policy valid from 21.07.2021 to 20.07.2022 (Annexure C-2). Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 16.07.2022 during the currency of the policy. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was taken to the authorized repairer OP No.1 and the vehicle was handed over to the OP No.1 for repairs on dated 17.07.2022. The vehicle was repaired and the complainant was informed by OP No.1 that the vehicle has been repaired and to collect the vehicle a bill for Rs.30813/- was raised (Annexure C-3). The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 to take the vehicle but he was shocked to see that the depreciation amount mentioned was Rs.5027/-. The complainant had no other option but to pay the depreciation amount. The complainant lodged his protest and mentioned on the invoice that he is not satisfied with body shop work as low-quality paint was done and it was peeling off and the vehicle was over painted at the time of delivery (Annexure C-8 colly). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court by wrongly presenting pre-repair paint photographs of the car (Annexure C-8 & C-9 colly) as post-repair paint photographs, which is clearly in contradiction to the pre-repair and post-repair pictures clicked by OP No.2 (insurance surveyor) during his inspections. Copy of pre-repair paint pictures of the car are annexed as Annexure R-4 and copy of post-repair paint pictures of the car are annexed as Annexure R-5. It is further stated that complaint is not maintainable as the entire complaint is based on vague oral averments without any documentary proof. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 06.12.2022.
4.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that while going through the claim file it was pointed out that a specific remarks was given in the survey report that while inspecting the claim some previous scratches were found in the vehicle of the complainant and hence it was specifically told to the complainant that a deduction of 5% in workshop labour and 15% deduction on paint will be applied and complainant gave his consent that he is ready to bear the 15% charges from his own pocket towards the old damages in his vehicle prior to the accident (Annexure R3-4/B to R3-4/C. It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim amount was disbursed by answering respondent and thereafter no protest was ever raised by the complainant against the said approved amount. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
5.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8.     The main grievance of the complainant is that OP No.1 has not done the proper painting of vehicle and also overcharged an amount of Rs.4027/- towards the painting work done by it on the vehicle of the complainant.

    We have gone through the Annexure R3-4/B, which is a report of surveyor, who have assessed the amount payable towards repairs to the complainant is Rs.25,786/- only. On perusal of Annexure R3-4/C, it is observed that it is the complainant, who himself had agreed for allowing 15% deduction of amount for repairs of panels with previous scratches. The Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

 

         In view of the above, we do not find any reason to differ with the amount of repairs as assessed by the surveyor and hence we are of the view that no amount has been overcharged.

9.     The complainant has failed to produce on record any evidence of the technical expert that the work of painting has not been done satisfactory by the OP No.1. Moreover, on perusal of the photographs produced by the complainant & the OP No.1 & 2 we are of the view that satisfactory painting work has been done by the OP No.1.
10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
03/04/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member