ORDER
Per NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   Complainant purchased a vehicle Model Maruti Ritz LDI BS IV bearing
registration no. DL 6 C Y 6835 from OP1 on 30/6/2010  and paid an
amount of Rs. 5,14,151/-. The  aforesaid  vehicle was duly insured
with OP2 vide cover note/ policy no 0G-12-1104-1801-00006277 for the
period from 1-7-2011 to 30-6-2012.  It is alleged by the complainant
that on 19-9-2011, all of a sudden his vehicle stopped on the road,
due to some engine problem.  The complainant called for the road
assistance of OP1 , who sent his engineer for repairing the above said
vehicle.   The engineer on the inspection told the complainant that
the fault in alleged vehicle will be recitified only at a workshop and
accordingly car was lifted by crane from Malviya Nagar Delhi to
Mayapuri, the service station of OP1.  It is further alleged by the
complainant that there after engineer of OP1 opened/ dismanteled the
engine and   found that the engine is crushed and informed him that
complete engine needs to be repaired, and at the same time the OP1
informed OP2 about the alleged defect in the vehicle  The OP2
appointed a surveyor to investigate the claim who visited at the
workshop of OP1 to inspect the vehicle, and all the necessary
information was provided to the surveyor by OP1.   It is alleged by
the complainant that he received a letter dated 4-10-2011  from OP2 in
which OP2 asked him as to why the engine was dismantled prior to visit
of the surveyor, which was duly replied to by him vide letter dated
13.10.2011. It is further alleged by the complainant that OP1 repaired
the engine of the vehicle and raise a bill of Rs. 86,641/- which was
paid by him in cash. It is alleged bythe complainant that both the Ops
are jointly and severally liable to reimburse the claim of Rs.
86,641/- and the failure to do so amounts to deficiency in services on
the part of the Ops.  Hence, this complaint.
Both the Ops have contested the complaint and have filed their
separate written statements, they have denied any deficiency in
service on their part. In his written statement OP1 has taken the
following defence:


That the true facts of the case are that a Maruti Car bearing No.
DL-9CY-6835 was insured vide policy No. OG 1104-18O1-00006277 for the
period 01.07.2011 30.06.2012 in the name of Shri Sunil Dutt for a sum
of
.• .__ ._ ...• __.
4,00,000/- and the liability of the company, if any, is subject to
terms and conditions of the policy. As per terms conditions of the
policy the insured has to inform company after the loss whereas the
complainant has given immediate intimation of the claim, therefore,
the complaint on this account is not maintainable. Even, on receiving
intimation, the company was appointed the surveyor Dheeraj Sood to
assess the loss, who on inspection of vehicle found that the engine of
the vehicle has already dismantled by the workshop. Therefore, no
opportunity given to the respondent to survey the damage to ascertain
cause and extent of loss. On receiving the intimation of same the
company report letter dated 04.10.2011 to ex why the vehicle had
already been dismantled/repaired prior to survey. Again a letter dated
01.11.2011 & 22.11.2011 written to explain the same. But no reply has
been received  from the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the
complain t was closed. As per the surveyor report dated a sum of Rs.
1788/- was approved by the surveyor for external damages cause  to the
vehicle, which amount the company has agreed to pay to the complainant
which was not accepted by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no
deficiency on the part of the respondent.  Thus, the claim of the
complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
In its separate written statement OP2 has prayed for the dismissal of
the complaint. The main defence of OP2 is contained in Para no. 8 of
the preliminary objection which are reproduced as under:
8.The respondent carried out the repairs of the vehicle after getting
approval from the complainant by depositing a sum of Rs.1O,000/- as an
advance money to be adjusted in the total bill to be raised by the
respondents. It is either the MSIL or the insurance Company are
responsible to look into the claims of the complainant. However, the
respondents had no role either of the claims.
The complainant is required to implead Maruti Suzuki India Ltd as a
party in the present complaint since the same is a necessary party.
There is no allegation of deficient service by the complainant in
respect of the repair work carried out by the answering respondent.
    All the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
   We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
OP2 has not denied that the insured vehicle had met with the accident
and was brought to the workshop of OP1 with the help of a crane.  On
being informed OP2 had appointed a surveyor to inspect the insured
vehicle and to assess the loss. The surveyor had assessed the loss @
Rs 1788.80 p. Even though OP1 had raised a bill for a sum of Rs.
86,641/-.  The surveyor at the end of his report has given reason as
to why the loan was assessed at Rs. 86,641/- but at Rs. 1788.80 . The
surveyor has opined that the vehicle had been running without
sufficient engine oil, there is however, no proof of the fact that the
insured vehicle ha d been run without sufficient engine oil  after it
had been met with accident.  The surveyor had assessed that the engine
has ceased because of the aforesaid fact, without considering as to
what had actually happened.  The complainant in his affidavit has
deposed that after the vehicle had stopped suddenly he has called road
assistance of OP1.   He has further deposed that enginner sent by OP1
an inspection had informed that the vehicle and be repaired at the
workshop only. The complainant had further deposed that thereafter he
had taken the vehicle to the workshop of OP1 with the helop of a crane
and had paid a sum of Rs. 1200/- to M/s Manto Crane Service vide bill
no. 922 dated 19-9-2011. There is no rebuttal to this statement of the
complainant.  The insured had , therefore, not plied the vehicle after
it had suddenly stopped on the road. The observation of the surveyor
was therefore, uncalled for and were based on assumption, and surmises
and conjectures. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that OP2
ought to have  paid the entire cost of repairs borne by the insured.
We hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-

1.Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs 87,841/- along with interest @
10% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 27-11-2011  till payment.
4. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 15000/-a s compensation for the
pain and agony suffered by him..
5. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
       The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from
the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay
interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP
fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this
Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer
Protection Act.


Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................