BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

M/s Sharad Projects (India) Ltd., through its MD, Sh.R.S.Dhiya, SCO No.94, 2nd Floor, Swastik Vihar, Sector 5, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.350-352 (FF), Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

2.     M/s Krishna Autos, 177E, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                   PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.V.P.Chatrath , Counsel for the complainant.

                Sh.Tajinder K. Joshi, Counsel for OP-1.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy counsel for Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

                Briefly stated, the Skoda Octavia Car of the complainant, insured with OP No.1, from 9.4.2011 to 8.4.2012, suddenly stopped on the road of Sector 16, Panchkula on 15.7.2011.  It did not move and the complainant had to take it to the workshop of OP No.2. The Surveyor of OP No.1 after inspecting the vehicle, permitted OP No.2 to carry out the necessary repairs.

                It is further the case of the complainant that the cost of the repair given by OP No.2 was Rs.77,929/- whereas OP No.1 approved only Rs.8903/-, as such, he made the payment of Rs.69,024/- to OP No.1.  It has been stated that since there was a defect in Hydrostatic Lock of the Car, consequently the water entered in air filter assembly and the car stopped.  A legal notice dated 30.7.2011 was also sent to the OP No.1, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]             OP No.1 filed reply, pleading therein that the vehicle in question was insured, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been further pleaded that after receiving the information, the replying OP appointed Mr.Amit Parmar, Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle thoroughly and found that there was aggravated/extended loss, which has occurred due to ingress of water resulting into mechanical breakdown. The car was taken by the complainant in the water logged road where it stopped. It has been further pleaded that once the car had stopped functioning on the water blocked road it had to be towed away to the service station but the complainant tried to restart the car again and again and  water entered in the engine and causes loss to the vehicle. This is aggravated/extended loss and same is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been further pleaded that the claim of Rs.8903/- was approved and denied that the policy of the complainant is cashless insurance policy. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.

3]             OP No.2 filed the reply, wherein, it has been pleaded that in the entire complaint, there was no allegation against OP No.2 for any deficiency on its part, while doing the repair job. The OP No.2 provided the best possible service to the complainant by doing the complete repair job to the full satisfaction of the complainant. It has been further pleaded that the water entered inside the engine, therefore, the components of the engine were damaged. This is called a Hydrostatic Lock of the engine and as such, it cannot be attributed as a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6]             Admittedly, the Skoda Octavia Car of the complainant, duly insured with OP Insurance Company vide Policy Ann.C-2, stopped on the road and as such taken to the workshop of OP-2, who carried necessary repairs and raised a bill of Rs.77,929/-.  It is also admitted that OP Insurance Company against the claim filed by the complainant had approved the claim only for Rs.8903/- and rest was denied being not covered under the terms & conditions of the policy.

7]             The contention of the ld.Counsel for the OP Insurance Company/OP-1 is that the claim of the complainant had already been settled vide Ann.R-1/2 whereby the complainant had received a sum of Rs.8903/- towards full & final settlement and discharged Bharti AXA GIC Ltd of all liability arising out of the said claim. 

8]             However, the ld.Counsel for complainant while denying the contention raised by ld.Counsel for OP No.1, stated that Ann.R-1/2 has not been signed by the complainant and this is a forged & fabricated document, hence cannot be relied upon.

9]             The allegations/averments made by Sh.V.P.chatrath, Counsel for the complainant itself shows that Ann.R-1/2 has been forged & fabricated by the OPs as well as the signatures of the complainant thereon has been forged, as the complainant never signed any such document.

10]           The law is well settled that when there are allegations of fraud and cheating etc., the Consumer Court has got no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate it and the matter is to be decided by the Civil Court.  Reliance has been placed on Daljit Singh Dogra Vs. ING VYSYA Bank & Others, 2009(4) CLT 22 (Punjab State Commission).

11]           In view of the foregoings, we are of the firm opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, the present stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. 

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.