Haryana

Karnal

487/2012

Sohan Lal Goyal S/o Lal Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sidak Automobile Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.C Gupta

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.487 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:08.10.2012

                                                               Date of decision 11.4.2017

 

Sohan Lal Goyal son of Shri Lal Chand resident of 6 SCF 2^nd Addl. Mandi Tehsil and District Sirsa now at house no.24 sector 20, Sirsa.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/s Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 71/3 Milestone, G.T. Road Karnal-132001 through its General Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Registered and Head Office, New Inda Assurance Building, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Fort Mumbai-400023 through its Zonal Manager.

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited having its Divisional Manager Sh.I.C. Sirohi.

4. Mrs. Shashi Gupta (Agent). The New India Assurance Company Limited office at Grand House G.T. Road Karnal 132001.( deleted vide order dated 4.5.2014)

5. Shri Mohan Grover Development Officer The New India Assurance Company Limited office at Grand House G.T. Road Karnal-132001.

 

                                                                    ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                   Ms. Veena Rani….. Member

Present:-      Shri S.S. Gupta Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Vinod Dogra Advocate for opposite party no.1

                    Shri Naveen Khaterpal Advocate for opposite parties no.2 to 5.

                    Opposite party no.4 given up.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased Skoda Laura Ambiente car with white cand of diesel bearing engine no.BJB207689 and chasis no.TMBCSE 1Z78A152333 from opposite party no.1 on 28.5.2008. Believing the opposite parties no.1, 3 to 5 he obtained cashless policy from opposite party no.2, vide cover note bearing no.219402 valid for the period of 25.8.2008 to 27.5.2009. Lateron, the car was got registered with registration authority at Sirsa, who issued registration no.HR 24K-6855 . His son had gone to Delhi to his in-laws house and parked the car outside the house. On 29.12.2008, when he wake-up in the morning, he found that both the side mirrors were stolen from the car by un-known person. The matter was reported to Timarpur Police Station and a Daily Diary no.138 was entered by the enquiry officer. The opposite parties were informed about the theft.  The surveyor was deputed by opposite party no.3, who visited the spot and collected all the documents for preparing the spot survey and final report.  The approved surveyor of opposite parties no.2 and 3 instructed the opposite party no.1 for fitting of new side mirrors, but opposite party no.1 asked his son to deposit the costs of the mirrors. Son of the complainant requested to opposite parties that the policy was cashless, but no positive response was received from them. Ultimately, the son of the complainant deposited the cost of mirror i.e.Rs.31,277/- and the claim was lodged with the insurance company, but the insurance company i.e. opposite party no.3 being incharge on behalf of opposite party no.2 sent letter dated 17.2.2009 repudiating the claim on the ground that theft of parts without vehicle was not covered under the policy. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of opposite party no.1 and that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party no.1 charged only for service charges and company price of the new parts fitted in the vehicle of the complainant. So, it is for the complainant to pay the amount, either from his own pocket or get the same from the insurance company, with which the vehicle was got insured. An amount of Rs.31,277/- was rightly charged from the complainant as cost of the mirrors. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite parties no.2, 3 and 5 filed joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complaint is not legally maintainable.

                   On merits, it has been averred that the claim lodged by the complainant was minutely investigated and scrutinized as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same was declared as ‘No Claim” on account of the reason “Theft of parts without vehicle not covered.” The complainant was intimated, vide letter dated 17.2.2009. It has also been pleaded that even the theft of stolen items was not established, as neither case was registered with the Police nor investigation was carried out, as untraced report was not submitted by the police. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                Opposite party no.4 was given up on 4.3.2014, therefore, her name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the opposite parties.

5.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 have been tendered.

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Tarsem Lal Singla Director Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of A.P.Chawla Ex.OP2/A, affidavit of I.C. Sirohi Branch Manager Ex.OP2/B and documents Ex.OP2/C to Ex.OP2/E have  been tendered.

7.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that the car of the complainant was insured with the opposite party no.2 at Divisional Office at Karnal for the period of 28.5.2008 to 27.5.2009. The complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 28/29.12.2008 the side mirrors of the car were stolen by some unknown person while the car was lying parked in front of house no.C-263-264 Nehru Vihar, Delhi and the matter was reported to the Police Station Tamirpur. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party no.3 appointed Chawla Associates as surveyor, who submitted report, the copy of which is Ex.OP2/C. A.P.Chawla Surveyor filed his affidavit Ex.OP2/A in support of his report. As per report, the request letter regarding theft of mirrors was attested by police authority, vide Daily Diary Report no.138 dated 29.12.2008. He assessed the cost of the mirrors alongwith labour charges. After making necessary deductions the net liability was assessed as Rs.15,650/-.Thus, theft of the side mirrors of the car has not been disputed by the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

9.                The claim of the complainant was made as ‘No Claim’ on the ground that the vehicle was insured against theft and theft of the parts without vehicle was not covered under the policy. The copy of the standard form for Private Car Package Policy has been placed on the record as Ex.OP2/D. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 5 could not point out any clause of the policy according to which theft of the parts without vehicle was not covered under the policy. The complainant had obtained policy for the complete vehicle, therefore, theft of any part thereof also stands covered in the policy until and unless, there is any exclusion clause, but there is no such exclusion clause in Ex.OP2/D or the insurance policy Ex.OP2/E.  Therefore, making the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ on such ground amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

10.              No doubt the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.31,277/- to opposite party no.1 for fitting of new side mirrors, but the report prepared by the surveyor cannot be ignored, because necessary deductions are required to be made out of the total amount of bill paid by the complainant to opposite party no.1. After making necessary deductions, the amount comes to Rs.15,650/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,650/- only from opposite parties no.2 and 3.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.15,650/- as loss assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 11.04.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)  (Veena Rani)

                               Member           Member