DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 477 of 2009 Date of Inst: 07.04.2009 Date of Decision: 25.02.2011 Dr.G.S.Bedi son of Sh.N.S.Bedi resident of House No.2385, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., GE Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerwada, Pune through its General Manager. 2. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCF No.11, Phase-3BII, Mohali (Punjab) through its Branch Manager. 3. M/s Lali Motors Ltd., Chandigarh through its Manager/Director. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant Sh.Yogesh Saini, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2. Sh.Aftab Singh, Adv. for OP No.3. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Dr.G.S.Bedi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Pay Rs.70,000/- for the total loss of the car. ii) Pay Rs.1 lac on account of mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got insured his car bearing registration No.PH-11Y-3502 with OPs No.1 and 2 under insurance policy No.OG-09-1202-1801-00001878 for insured declared value of Rs.4 lacs against the premium of Rs.11079/-. The said insurance policy was valid for the period from 30.04.2008 to 29.04.2009. On 4/5.08.08, the car of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rains. M/s Lali Motors, Chandigarh (OP-3) prepared an estimate to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs. It has been pleaded by the complainant that on the request of surveyor, the vehicle was taken to private mechanic at Sector 38, Chandigarh who assessed the loss more than Rs. 2 lacs. According to the complainant, he incurred Rs.70,000/- towards repairs of his car but surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.12,612/- instead of Rs.70,000/-. According to the complainant, he accepted the said amount under protest but the remaining claim has been rejected by OPs which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been admitted that the car in question was insured for the period from 30.04.08 to 29.04.09 for insured declared value of Rs.4 lacs. On receipt of the claim intimation, M/s Protec Engineer was appointed as surveyor who assessed the loss to tune of Rs.14537/- vide his report dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure R-1). It has bene pleaded that the said amount of Rs.14,537/- was duly released to the complainant vide cheque dated 18.09.2008. The complainant has accepted the said amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim after executing a discharge voucher. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint qua them deserves dismissal. 4. In its separate reply filed by the OP-3, it has been stated that OP-3 has no role to play as the present dispute is between the complainant and OPs No.1 and 2. It has pleaded that problem due to water logging is not covered under the purview of warranty and extended warranty policy of the car. It has further pleaded that the complainant got repaired the vehicle from outside and therefore, he has violated the terms and conditions of the company. In these circumstances, according to OP-3, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. The case of the complainant is that the car was taken to M/s Prestige Honda (OP-3) for repairs who assessed the loss for Rs.2.5 lacs. However, on the advice of the surveyor appointed by the OP, the car was taken to a private mechanic namely HM & Sons for its repairs. The receipt dated 18.08.2008 to this effect has been placed on record by the complainant as Annexure C-4 which shows that the engine was assembled with second hand parts and the complainant was charged a sum of Rs.70,780/- towards its repair. From the surveyor report (Annexure R-1), it is apparent that the above said amount has been disallowed being the consequential damages. It is pertinent to mention here that the engine was damaged due to the water logging in the rainy water. So the loss cannot be said to be consequential one and the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.70,000/- as claimed by him. Faced with this situation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 that the complainant has signed the discharge voucher in full and final satisfaction of his claim. In our view, the signing of the discharge voucher is of no consequence as the complainant had to sign the same in order to receive the amount which was paid to him. 7. As the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP-3, therefore, the complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.70,000/- after the deducting Rs.14,537/- already paid to the complainant. OPs No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. 9. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.65,463/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization besides cost of litigation. 10. Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 25.02.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
