BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:483 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 03.12.2013.
Date of Decision:04.09.2017
Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Chander Bhan, resident of village Chang Mohalla Gola Gandhi, Bhiwani.
..….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Sailesh Auto Mobiles, Near Hunnamal Piyau, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani authorized delaer of Chevrolet “Beat” car.
- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through M/s Shailesh Auto Mobiles, near Hunna Mal Piau, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani.
- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. R.O. LIC Building 2nd Floor, Jagadhari Road Ambala Cantt. Through its Branch Manager Circular Road in front of Kirori Mal Park Bhiwani.
- The General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. registered office (Chevrolet), Chandrapura Industrial Estate Halol, District Panchamahals, Gujarat.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. B.S. Saroha, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OPs no. 2 & 3.
Sh. J.P. Tanwar, Advocate for OP no. 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a car Chevrolet Beat ‘LT’ from M/s Sailesh Automobiles, Bhiwani vide invoice no. R00099 dated 29.6.2012. It is alleged that the OP no. 2 insured the vehicle on 29.6.2012 and issued a motor vehicle under package policy of OIC bearing no. AMB 356486 dated 29.6.2012 under the seal and signature of M/s Shalesh Auto Mobile Bhiwani after receiving Rs. 12176/-. It is alleged that on 25.6.2013 an accident was occurred with the aforesaid vehicle and on the same day the damaged vehicle was parked in the workshop of OPs no. 1 & 2 for repair as well as replacement of damaged parts of the insured vehicle. It is alleged that total amount incurred upon repair of vehicle would be refunded by the OIC and the same would be credited at the earliest in your saving bank account. It is alleged that as per advise of OPs no. 1 & 2 the damaged vehicle would be changed in the workshop and the total expenses of labour charges of repair as well as replaced parts of the vehicle would be refunded by the OP no. 3. It is submitted that Ops no. 1 & 2 did not explain the cogent reasons even after several visits to the workshop of OP no. 1, due to which the OIC is not liable to refund the total cost incurred upon the repair of the insured vehicle. The complainant served a legal notice to the OPs. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was insured with OP no. 3. It is submitted that damaged vehicle was brought the workshop of the answering respondent and intimation in this regard was sent to OP no. 3 to depute the surveyor to get the loss assess. It is submitted that the complainant did not visited in the office of the answering respondent. It is submitted that the answering respondent has given the services to the complainant to his satisfaction. It is submitted that legal notice served by answering respondent has already been replied. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OPs no. 2 & 3 also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that there is nothing on the file that the complainant was entitled to a service and that was not allowed or it was deficient and there is no dispute regarding that service as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that no such assurance can bind the answering respondent as the claims are settled and paid according to rules and regulations applicable on the facts and circumstances of the claim. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 4 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent is the manufacturer of the vehicle and has no concern with the insurance if any allegedly done by the Op no. 1. It is submitted that if OP no. 1 has got insured the vehicle of the complainant, that might have been done, being the agent of the OPs no. 2 & 3. It is submitted that the answering respondent have any no concerned in matter in dispute and the answering respondent have been dragged in unwanted litigation. . Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 4 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence document Annexure C-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the OP no. 1 has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 54921/- to the OP no. 1 for the accidental repairs. The OP no. 1 is the authorized dealer of the car who repaired the vehicle in question of the complainant and the said vehicle was insured with OP no. 2. The OP no. 2 has reimbursed a sum of Rs. 35347/- by making the payment into the account of the complainant on 12.8.2013. He submitted that the insurance company of the OP no. 2 is liable to pay the balance amount to the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.
54,921/- as repairs to the OP no. 1 and the claim of the complainant is to be paid by the OPs no. 2 & 3 to the complainant.
10. The counsel for the OPs no. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the amount of claim has been paid by the OPs no. 2 & 3 after making deduction on account of depreciation as mentioned in the surveyor report dated 20.7.2013 Annexure R-7 according to the terms and conditions of the policy.
11. Learned counsel for the OP no. 4 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 4 is the manufacturing company of the car and the complainant has no cause of action of OP no. 4 because it is between the complainant and OP no. 2 and 3 regarding the claim of the complainant for accidental repairs carried out by the OP no. 1.
12. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 54921/- raised by the OP no. 1 for the repairs carried out by the OP no. 1 of the accidental car of the complainant which was insured by OPs no. 2 & 3. The complainant has paid the bill of repairs to the OP no. 1 and the OPs no. 2 & 3 has paid Rs. 35,347/- to the complainant. Now the complainant has claimed the balance amount of repairs from the OPs no. 2 & 3. Indisputably, the OP no. 1 is the authorized dealer of the car who carried out the accidental repairs of the car in question. According to the OPs no. 2 & 3, 5 per cent has been deducted on the metal parts and 50% has been deducted on the plastic classic parts and deduction of 12.5 per cent has been made on the paints items. We have perused the surveyor report Annexure R-7. The surveyor has not given the sufficient ground for making the deductions as alleged by the OPs no. 2 & 3 in their reply. The deductions made by the OPs no. 2 & 3 seems to be on higher side. The car in question was new one which was purchased by the complainant on 29.6.2012. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we assess that a sum of Rs. 10,500/- be reimbursed by the OPs no. 2 & 3 to the complainant. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the OPs no. 2 & 3. The OPs no. 2 & 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,500/- to the complainant by draft/cheque drawn in his favour and the same be sent within 45 days from the date of passing of this order on the address of the complainant given in the complaint. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 04.09.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
