Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/683/2013

Azam Khan S/o Faqir Maohd.Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rahul Singla

28 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                                             Complaint No.683 of 2013.

                                                                             Date of institution: 19.09.2013.

                                                                             Date of decision: 28.09.2017.

Azam Khan, age 30 years, son of Sh. Fazir Mohd. Khan, R/o W.No.14, Vakil Colony, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s. Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager (Authorized workshop of Hyundai).
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector-17A, Chandigarh, Claim Hub Karnal, through its Manager. 

 

          ….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.      

 

Present:           Sh. Rahul Singla, Advocate, for complainant.   

                        Smt. Seema Sehgal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                        Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Adv. for Op No.2.

                       

         

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                        The complainant-Azam Khan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                    Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is registered owner of car make I-20 (B.S. iv) bearing registration No.HR09-D/-0206 and he got insured the same with the Op No.2 vide policy No.31/12/01/4087 valid upto 28.07.2013.  It is alleged that on 09.03.2013, the said vehicle met with an accident.  Information regarding accident was given to the Op No.2 and a surveyor was appointed by the Op No.2.  The surveyor checked the vehicle of the complainant and prepared an estimate of repair with the consultation of the service-manager of the Op No.1 and after preparing the estimate cost, the Ops said that the maximum estimate damage is near about Rs.1,25,000/-, out of which the complainant will have to pay only some charges and thereafter, the claim of insured vehicle was approved by the Op No.2 as per estimate cost of Rs.1,33,411/-.  After a month, when the complainant went to the workshop of Op No.1 and met  the service-manager, he said that they have no tie-up with the Op No.2 and the complainant will have to pay the bill amount of repair as his policy does not fall in the cashless one.  Despite several visits made by the complainant, the Op No.1 delayed the delivery of car.  On 28.05.2013, the Op No.1 called the complainant for delivery of the car and the complainant was shocked to see the credit invoice of the repair to the tune of Rs.2,13,115/-.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to recover amount from the complainant as per estimate of Rs.1,33,411/- .  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum.  The true facts are that the complainant approached the answering Op with an accidental damaged vehicle and requested to get the same repaired.  On external inspection, rough estimate was prepared to the tune of Rs.1,83,332/- and complainant accepted the said estimate and asked the answering Op for repair of the vehicle.  Thereafter, the answering Op got repaired the vehicle and according to the repair, spare and labour, the costs had arise at Rs.2,13,115/- as per bill/invoice dt. 28.05.2013.  On repair, the complainant was called for delivery of the vehicle and for payment as per bill, but the complainant did not adhere for the same and then, the answering Op wrote letters dt. 18.07.2013 and 05.08.2013 but the complainant did not adhere to the same.  The complainant took the delivery of vehicle on 02.10.2013 on payment of invoice amount of Rs.2,13,115/- and thereafter, the complainant has received the payment from the insurance company regarding damage of car in question.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint with the heavy costs and he be directed to make the payment of Rs.37,276.50 paise as assessed of storage charges etc. to the answering Op.

4.                    Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that on receipt of intimation regarding accident, the Op company deputed Raman Auto, an independent surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the spot survey and the Op company deputed Sh. S.L.Saini, an independent surveyor and loss assessor to conduct final survey.  The said surveyor submitted a supplementary report dt. 15.06.2013 and assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.1,33,411/-.  Thereafter, the Op company deputed Sh. Sandeep Kumar, an independent surveyor and loss-assessor to conduct re-inspection of the car in question and he submitted a report, wherein the said surveyor reported that the repair work has been carried out as per final survey report of Sh. S.L.Saini.  On receipt of the reports of the surveyors, the claim in question was further processed and after deducting the excess and salvage value, the Op company settled the claim of Rs.1,27,900/- and transferred the said amount in the account of the insured vide NEFT dt. 10.07.2013.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                    Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

6.                    On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rahul Khanna, Managing Director as Annexure-R1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1/1 to Annexure-R1/8 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.1.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavits, Annexure-R2/A & R2/B alongwith documents Annexure-R2/1 to R2/5 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.2.    

6.                    We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.                    From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the foremost question which arises for consideration is that whether the Op No.1 without any consent of the complainant repaired the vehicle and charged the repaired value in excess than estimated cost of repair?

                        The version of the complainant is that before repairing the vehicle in question, the maximum estimate of damage was given by the Op No.1 only to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- but when the final invoice was prepared by the Op No.1, then an amount of Rs.2,13,115/- was demanded by the Op No.1 as repair cost, which is illegal.  On the other hand, the version of the Op No.1 is that on external inspection rough estimate was prepared to the tune of Rs.1,83,332/- and it was also told to the complainant that the actual amount of repair, spare and labour will be prepared after opening the vehicle.  Thereafter, the Op No.1 repaired the vehicle and according to the repair, spare and labour, the cost arose to Rs.2,13,115/- as per bill/invoice dt. 28.05.2013.  But the complainant did not make the payment and as such, the delivery of the vehicle was not given to the complainant.  From the perusal of document Annexure-R1/1, it is crystal clear that Annexure-R1/1 is a rough estimate to the tune of Rs.1,83,332.60 paise for repair of vehicle in question as it bears the signature of complainant  .  We have also perused the document Annexure-R1/2, which is repair order whereby the complainant authorized the Op No.1 to repair the vehicle in question and also put his signature on this repair order.  The complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence or document to show that at the time of repair, the Op No.1 had given the rough estimate of repair to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.  Besides this, during the pendency of the case, the complainant has received his vehicle from the Op No.1 on 03.10.2013, which is clear from the document Annexure-R1/8 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the complainant received the vehicle after his entire satisfaction.  It means that the complainant is satisfied and paid the whole amount of repair to the Op No.1.  From the perusal of pleading of the complaint, the complainant has not sought any relief from the Op No.2 i.e. insurance company.  The insurance company has already paid/transferred the amount of Rs.1,27,900/- in the account of insured on 10.07.2013.  The aforesaid amount was assessed by the surveyor and we are of the considered view that the surveyor is the independent and qualified person to assess the loss and there is no reason for this Forum to ignore or discard his report.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

8.        Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.    

Announced in open court:

Dated: 28.09.2017.

                                                                        (SATPAL)

                                                                        PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                      (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                        MEMBER