DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.479 of 2015 Date of institution: 16.09.2015 Date of decision: 12.10.2016
Deraj Kumar resident of House No.0397/BI, Dashmesh Colony, Near Bus Stand, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.183-185, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Divisional Manager.
2. M/s TRICITYAUTOS, Zirakpur-Patiala Highway, Near AKM Resorts, Zirakpur (PUNJAB)-140601, through its Manager.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member
Present: Shri M.S.Bedi, counsel for the complainant. Shri Rakesh Sharma, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Deraj Kumar resident of House No.0397/BI, Dashmesh Colony, Near Bus Stand, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant got insured his new car Maruti Suzuki/Swift Desire bearing Registration No. HR-40-D-4924 on 01.04.2015 vide policy No.110200311P100370231. It was assured by OP No.1 that in case of accident, the complainant is supposed to make just a payment of Rs.1000/- to the company and park his vehicle with any authorized dealer workshop of Maruti Suzuki and further assured that all the payments would be made directly to the dealer by the Insurance Company. On 02.06.2015 at about 10:30 am, while driving the said car, the tyre of the same was bursted, it overturned and was badly damaged. The DDR was got registered with the police on the same day and information was also sent to the Insurance Company immediately after the accident. The complainant was advised to send his car to OP No.2 for necessary repair and it was also assured that he would not be asked to make any payment under any circumstances to the dealer. The said car was sent to OP No.2 for repair. The complainant received a call from OP No.2 to get the delivery of the car after making payment of Rs.1,09,648/-. The complainant immediately visited office of OP No.2 and informed the dealer that the entire payment would be made by the Insurance Company directly and requested for delivery of his car. But all his requests were turned down and he was not allowed to get the delivery of his car, even he was not allowed to inspect the repaired car. The complainant immediately informed the Insurance company and got released an amount of Rs.95,000/-, which was made to the said dealer. Thereafter the complainant again visited the dealer to get the delivery of his car, but again he was asked to pay parking fee amounting to Rs.8,500/- and balance payment of Rs.14,440/-, total amounts comes to Rs.22,940/-. After lot of persuasion the dealer agreed to receive Rs.14,440/- and after payment of the said amount the complainant got the delivery of his car. After taking delivery of the vehicle, it was noticed that the same was not repaired properly and the spare parts affixed are either spurious or used and the vehicle was not running smoothly. The complainant also got served a legal notice but in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.14,440/- as extra payment made to the dealer, Rs. 25000/- paid to hire taxi to get medical aid to his wife, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.11.2015.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed its written reply. In reply to the complaint it raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As regards to the facts in the complaint, OP No.1 admitted that the car in question was insured from Bumper to Bumper, however, the liability of the company is strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. It further stated that the independent surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,648/-, vide his survey report dated 10.07.2015. As per the policy there is necessary excess of Rs.1,000/- and salvage value of the wreck was assessed to be Rs.2500/-. It was found that the complainant had got some other jobs done on the vehicle other than the accidental repairs and the value of those jobs was assessed to the tune of Rs.8126.74. It is further stated that no depreciation was carried on/charged from the complainant. After deducting necessary excess + extra job+ Salvage (to be borne by insured) from the repair bill, the remaining amount of Rs.97,148/- was paid to the repairer. The complainant has given satisfaction voucher that he is satisfied with the repairs carried out. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case filed his affidavit dated 10.02.2016 Ex. CW1/1, copies of insurance policy Ex. C-1, DDR Ex. C-2, job card Ex.C-3, legal notice Ex. C-4, postal receipts Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebutal OP No.1 produced affidavit of Sh. B.M.Bharty, Incharge Service HUB Ex. OP1/1, affidavit of Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex. OP1/2, affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Sethi, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex. OP1/3, copies of motor accident intimation cum claim form Ex. OP-1, Motor Claim Form Ex. OP-2, Insurance Policy Ex. OP-3, Surveyor report dated 10.07.2015 Ex. OP-4, Surveyor Report dated 16.07.2015 Ex. OP-5, reply to legal notice Ex. OP-6, voucher Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.
6. The Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that OP No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant due to the findings given by surveyors, wherein it has stated that the complainant got some other jobs, other than the accidental repairs. Thus complainant is not entitled to any amount as claimed. He pleaded that as per Surveyor report dated 10.07.2015 i.e. Ex. OP-4 and Surveyor Report dated 16.07.2015 i.e. Ex.OP-5.Learned counsel stated that from the surveyor reports it has not been established as to what specific other jobs the complainant had got done in his vehicle. He argued that the surveyor reports cannot be accepted and the same deserves to be rejected as it is arbitrary. Learned counsel further argued that it is established from the act and conduct of the OP No.1 that it has committed deficiency of service.
7. On the other hand the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He submitted that no depreciation was carried on/charged from the complainant. The Learned counsel further submitted that after deducting necessary excess + extra job+ Salvage (to be borne by insured) from the repair bill, the remaining amount of Rs.97,148/- was paid to the repairer. Learned counsel argued that it is established from the surveyor reports i.e. Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 that the claim has been decided on the basis of the retail invoice i.e. Ex.C-3.
8. After hearing the Learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments as well as oral submissions, we find that OP No.1 has failed to prove by any evidence that the complainant had got some other jobs done on the vehicle other than the accidental repairs and the value of those jobs was assessed to the tune of Rs.8126.74. There is nothing mention about this fact in the surveyor reports Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5. The OP No.1 has also failed to produce the satisfaction voucher, if any, vide which the complainant has stated that he is satisfied with the repairs carried out. Thus, in the absence of any such documentary evidence, the oral version of the OP No.1 that an amount of Rs.8126.74 was deducted by it being the repair charges other than the accidental repairs, cannot be accepted. The complainant has paid this amount to OP No.1 from his own pocket in order to get delivery of his vehicle. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get this amount from OP No.1. The role of OP No.2 in the present complaint is only that of repairer, so there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion we direct OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.14,440/- (Rs. Fourteen thousand four hundred forty only) to the complainant. We also find that complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony and litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed against OP No.1.
The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise OP No.1 shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 12.10.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
