Haryana

Ambala

CC/233/2018

Virender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Modern Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Vaid

15 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  233 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :    01.08.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     :    15.03.2021

 

Virender Kumar Vaid son of Late Shri Jagat Ram Vaid, resident of House No.G-65, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Modern Automobiles, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Manager.  
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, through its Manager.
3. Stan Autos Private Limited, G.T. Road, Near Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana (Pb).
4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ambala Cantt through its Divisional Manager (Insurer of Maruti Alto K10 bearing Regn. No.HR-01AG-5465).

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Vivek Vaid, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.4.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund/pay a sum of Rs.27,300/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till its realisation.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

           

 

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of Maruti Alto K-10 car bearing Registration No.HR-01-AG-5465, which he purchased from the OP No.1 in year 2013. At the time of its purchase, the OP No.1 told him that it can provide insurance as it has a tie up with the New India Insurance Company Limited i.e. OP No.4. On 01.07.2013, he had taken the insurance policy from the OP No.4, through OP No.1, by paying an amount of Rs.10472/- through cheque. It is worth to mention here that the OPs No.1 and 2 assured him that they had insured the car of the complainant comprehensively. In case of damage of the vehicle, he will be entitled to get the entire claim amount. By believing the OPs No.1 and 2, complainant continued the patronage with the OP No.4 and got insured his car every year from the OP No.4, as the OPs No.1 and 2 told him that if he got insured his car from somewhere else then OP No.1 will not be responsible, in any manner. On 06.06.2017, complainant got insured his car from OP No.4 vide policy No.98000031170105414465 for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018, through OP No.1. On 05.08.2017, complainant along with his wife and mother-in-law, were going to Jalandhar from Ambala Cantt., in the said car. When they reached at Ludhiana, it met with an accident and a DDR No.13 dated 07.08.2017, was got registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. Since, his car got damaged badly, therefore he got it repaired from the OP no.3 i.e. Stan Auto Private Limited, Ludhiana. It took Rs.27,300/- extra from the complainant in addition to the amount received from the insurance company, whereas at the time of issuing the policy, the OPs No.1 and 4, assured him that in case of accidental repair, the repair charges will be borne by the insurance company and nothing has to be paid by him. Since, the policy was comprehensive in nature, therefore complainant was not suppose to pay any amount for the repair, but in order to get his vehicle released from the OP No.3, he had no other option, instead of paying Rs.27,300/- to it. He immediately took up the matter with the Proprietor of the OP No.1, who initially agreed to pay Rs.27,300/- which he had already paid to OP No.3, but later on he refused to pay the said amount. He got served a legal notice dated 08.03.2018, upon the OPs, but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction, cause of action, mis joinder of parties etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is an independent entity, having its own MOA and carry out business on its own invoice and sale certificate. OP No.2, does not sell its products to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate. OP No.2, sells its products to the authorized dealers only and relationship between the OP No.2 and its dealers is on the Principle to Principle basis. Complainant entered into an independent transaction, for purchase of the vehicle in question with OP No.1. The OP No.2 neither received any amount as consideration from the complainant nor had privy of contract with him. The complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 as the alleged transaction of Insurance was among the complainant and OPs No.1 and 4. It is further stated that admittedly the vehicle in question met with an accident on 05.08.2017, at Ludhiana and was taken to workshop of OP No.3, for accidental repairs. No kind of assurance was given to the complainant by the OP No.2. No specific allegation has been levelled against it. Complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim. The complainant served the legal notice upon it unnecessarily just to extract money from it illegally. Complainant has failed to disclose any specific loss/damage caused to him entitling him in any manner to raise any claim of compensation. Complainant has failed to prove unfair trade practice against the OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2, thus the complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and territorial jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.4 paid him the repair charges to the extent as assessed by the surveyor and rest of the amount was paid by the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount without any objections. There is no deficiency on its part in providing the services to the complaint and complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.4 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, territorial jurisdiction and not coming with clean hands before this Commission etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant took the insurance policy from it on his own sweet will and choice & according to his own needs and after going through the terms and conditions and the benefits given under the insurance policy. Although it was a comprehensive and cashless insurance policy, but in the event of any claim, the insurance company was only liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor and the rest of the amount was to be paid by the complainant. The Insurance policy in different from bumper to bumper policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor and the rest of the amount had to be paid by the insured. It is further stated that on getting intimation of the alleged loss, a surveyor M/s R.P. Bhasin & Co. was immediately deputed to assess the loss, who visited the workshop of M/s Stan Automobiles, where the car in question was parked by the complainant on his own and inspected it and in consultation with the complainant and to his entire satisfaction, the said surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.51,656/-, after deducting the amount under excess clause and depreciation clause, subject to approval of claim by the competent authority. After considering the claim in the light of surveyor’s report dated 04.09.2017, the competent authority approved the claim of Rs.51,656/-, and the payment of the said amount was accordingly released to the workshop, from where the complainant got his car repaired on 03.11.2017, as full and final settlement of his claim. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to extract more money and to put undue pressure, without any cause of action. There is no deficiency on its part in providing the services to the complaint and complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs..

3.       The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith document as Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No. 1 & 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Chander Shekhar, General Manager, Modern Automobiles, G.T. Road, Ambala City and affidavit of Shri Rajesh Gupta, Manager, M/s Stan Auto Private Limited, G.T. Road, Ludhiana (Pb.) as Annexure OP1/A and OP3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has not filed any evidence, rather made a statement that the written version filed by the OP No.2, may be read as evidence of the OP No.2 and closed the evidence of OP No.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.4 tendered affidavit of Shri K.K. Sachdeva, Sr. Divisional Manager & Authorized Signatory, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Ambala and affidavit of R.P. Bhasin, Surveyor and loss assessor and Prop. of Firm M/s R.P. Bhasin & Co. having its office at 80-J, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab along with documents Annexure OP4/1 to OP4/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 5.               Annexure C-10, is the policy document, vide which the complainant got his car insured from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. i.e. OP No.4, for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018. It is an admitted fact that the said car met with an accident on 05.08.2017 and complainant took it to the OP No.3 i.e. Stan Autos Pvt. Limited, for its repairs. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that since it was a comprehensive policy and the complainant was not supposed to pay any amount from his pocket for the repair of the car in question, because as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the repair charges were to be paid by the insurance company. However, the OP No.3, told him that, if he wants to take the delivery of the car, then he had to pay Rs.27,300/- as repair charges from his own pocket. In order to get his car released from the OP No.3, he had no other option except to pay Rs.27,300/- to the OP No.3. Complainant is entitled to get back the said amount, therefore complaint may be allowed and directions may kindly be issued to the OPs to repay the amount of Rs.27,300/- to the complainant along with interest. The Ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 argued that since the car was duly insured with the OP No.4, therefore repair charges were to be paid by it as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The repair charges have already paid to the repairer as assessed by the Surveyor, as such, complainant had no occasion to file the present complaint against the OPs No.1 to 3 and same may kindly be dismissed with costs. The Ld. counsel for the OP No.4, has submitted that the complainant had taken a comprehensive policy and not a zero depreciation policy and depreciation clause is applicable under the policy in question. To corroborate this fact he has produced the ‘Standard Form for Private Car Package Policy’, same is taken on record and marked as ‘A’. He further submitted that, in case any claim has been received under the comprehensive policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.51,655/- after making necessary deductions as per the terms and conditions of the policy and has furnished the detailed report, which has not been controverted by the complainant. The said amount of Rs.51,655/- was paid to the repairer by the OP No.4, without any delay and complainant has executed the ‘satisfaction voucher’ Annexure OP4/3, in favour of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As such the complainant has no occasion to file the present complaint against it and same may be dismissed with heavy costs. It may be stated here that insured and insurer are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the Policy schedule Annexure C-10, under the Head ‘Policy Type’, Package Policy (Private Vehicle) has been mentioned. From the perusal of ‘Standard Form for Private Car Package Policy’, it is evident that deprecation clause is applicable for the policy in question. On bare perusal of report of the surveyor, it is apparent that it is a well explained and detailed one and the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.51,656/-, after making necessary deductions as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The OPNo.4 had already paid the said amount to the OP No.3. Even otherwise, from the satisfaction voucher dated 30.08.2017, Annexure OP4/3, it is evident that the complainant had accepted the claim amount of Rs.51,656/-, paid by the OP No.4 to OP No.3 as repair charges, in full discharge of the claim. Once, the complainant has executed the ‘satisfaction voucher’, in favour of OP No.4, then he has no occasion to agitate the matter at this stage. In the case of National Insurance Co. Versus Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1) SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“25. Where one of the parties to the contract issue and full and final discharge voucher (or no dues certificate, as the case may be) confirming that he has received the payment in full and final satisfaction of all claim and he has no outstanding claim, that amounts to discharge of the contract by acceptance of performance and the party issuing the discharge voucher/certificate cannot thereafter make any fresh claim or revive any settled claim nor can it seek reference to arbitration in respect of any claim.”                

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 15.03.2021.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                 (Ruby Sharma)             (Neena Sandhu)

          Member                                   Member                          President.