Date of filing :-11/03/2016.
Date of Order:-25/09/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2016
Diptikanta Mishra, aged about 28(twenty eight) years, Son of Khageswar Mishra, R/o Shakti Nagar, Ward No.11(eleven), Bargarh, Po. Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh, (town), Dist. Bargarh. ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
V e r s u s
National Insurance Co Ltd., represented through its Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch, At-Canal Avenue, Bargarh, Po-Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh(town), Dist. Bargarh-758028.
Minerva Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Madhiapali, Bolangir, represented through its Manager, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bolangir. ..... ..... ..... .....Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri T.C.Tripathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte. .
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.25/09/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the Case ;-
In pursuance to the Consumer protection Act-1986 U/s 12, the Complainant has preffered to file the case pertaining to the allegation of deficiencies of service against the Opposite Parties on the ground mentioned hereunder.
The Complainant being an owner of a Pick UP FB Van bearing Regd No-OD-17-C-6937, insured his said Vehicle with the Opposite Party No-1(one) on Date.28.07.2015 for one year by paying the required amount of premium, vide Policy No-163403/31/15/6300001400, and during the subsistence of the said policy period the said vehicle met with an accident near Barangpali within the jurisdiction of the Bargarh District, causing a substantial damage to the part of the vehicle, So immediately after the accident the Complainant reported the matter to the police which was registered vide S.D. Entry No-456 Dt-14.08.2015, And also reported the same to the Opposite Party No-1(one).
That, on getting information the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor namely Sudam Chandra Panda to conduct survey upon the same and to report, Further Case of the Complainant is that on the advice of the Opposite Party No-1(one) the vehicle was transferred to the service centre, the Opposite Party No-2(two), the authorised service center of the Opposite Party No-1(one) by towing and the same was repaired there in presence of the said surveyor. Initially the cost of repair was estimated by the Opposite Party No-2(two) to the tune of Rs.2,79,617/-(Rupees two lakh seventy nine thousand six hundred seventeen)only but after the repair was over bill amounting to Rs.2,55,005/-(Rupees two lakh fifty five thousand five)only was issued to the Complainant to which he paid to the Opposite Party No-2(two), in addition to the repair cost the Complainant claim an amount of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only for the said towing charges. Hence the Complainant claimed an amount of Rs.2,65,005/-(Rupees two lakh sixty five thousand five)only in total before the Opposite Party No-1(one), but to his utter surprise made payment of Rs.1,84,400/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand four hundred)only by transferring to his account against his Legitimate claim as afore said inspite of his request to reconsider and objection against the same, And on the contrary replied him saying that they have paid the same to him on the basis of final survey report of an engineer cum surveyor namely Kawaljit Singh but on being asked by the Complainant to supply the copy of the said report of the said surveyor the Opposite Party No-1(one) denied to supply the same ,which amounts to deficiencies of service unfair trade practice as per him hence has filed the case with a prayer for redressal of his grievance by giving a direction to the Opposite Parties for making him payments of Rs. 1,77,605/-(Rupees one lakh seventy seven thousand six hundred five)only towards the compensation for the deficiencies and unfair trade practice along with an interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) per annum from the date of filing the case till the realization of the same, claiming the cause of action for filing of the case Dt.14.08.2015, the date of accident and on Dt.15.02.2016, Dt.29.02.2016 respectively when the Complainant served notice on the the Opposite Party and when the Opposite Party repaired and deposited Rs. 1,84,400/-(Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand four hundred)only in his account. And to substantiate his case the Complainant has relied on some documents relating to the accident Rs.77,605/-(Rupees seventy seven lakh six hundred five)only as loss and Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards mental agony and physical harassment along with pendentilite & future interest. Those documents relied on by the Complainant are as follows.
Vehicular Documents,
Insurance Policy,
Surveyors report (to be called for)
Final Bill submitted by O.P.No.2(two)
Money receipt no-2877 dt-22.10.2015
Office Copy of registered letter dt-15.02.2016,
postal receipt,
reply of the Opposite Party No.1(one)
Having gone through the Complaint, documents filed by the Complainant and on hearing his Advocate it was found to be a genuine one hence was admitted and on being noticed the Opposite Party No-1(one) appeared before the Forum and filed his version and the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not turn of even being sufficiently served with the notice so after awaiting for a long period for his appearance he was set Ex-parte, And so far as the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is concerned it has admitted all the averments made by the complainant except the contents made therein regarding the status of the Opposite Party No.2(two) as he is not an authorized service centre of it rather it is the service centre of the Mahendra Automobiles, And further the contents of the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) clarifies that the assessment amount of the repair of the vehicle recommended by the Authorised Engineer surveyor is the final amount but not as per the averment of claim on the basis of the surveyor namely Sudam Chandra Panda, hence has claims to rightly deducted the excess amount beyond the calculation of the said Kawaljit Singh. In view of such circumstances there is no deficiencies in giving service on it’s part and is not liable for any action thereunder , As such has mostly denied it’s overall liability for any further claim made by the Complainant and is liable to be dismissed. And to substantiate it’s pleas has relied on some Documents .i.e on Dt-12.04.2017
True copy of the Motors Survey report of Er.Sudam Chandra Panda (three sheets).
True Copy of the report of surveyor & loss assessor-Er Kawaljit Singh. (nine sheets)
True Copy of the Claim form & service Quotation submitted by the Complainant before the Opposite Party( four sheets)
True copy of the letter of the Opposite Party to the Complainant in reply to the letter dated 15.12.2016 (one sheet).
Having gone through the complaint and the version and the Documents filed by both the Parties and on hearing both the respective parties it came to our notice that for proper adjudication of the case the case rests only on two vital points besides other 1st whether there has been commitment of deficiencies of service and un-fair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No-1(one) .2nd whether the Complainant is entitled for further claim made by him along with other claim and compensation .
While Examining the point of determination as to whether there has been unfair trade practice and deficiencies in giving service to the complainant has been caused, Delving deep in to the matter and having gone through the materials of both the parties available in the record it has come to our notice that the Opposite Party No-1(one) initially after getting information from the Complainant about the accident has deputed one surveyor namely Sudam Chandra Panda to survey the case and to report and accordingly the said surveyor surveyed the same and has submitted his report which reveals the fact of the accident and the necessesity of towing the said vehicle to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and also as per the claim of the Complainant the estimate made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) has been made in presence of the said surveyor seems to be true as it reveals from his report that he has conducted the survey on Dt.19.08.2015 after five days of the accident so obviously he has conducted the survey of the vehicle in the service centre of the Opposite Party No-2(two) and accordingly given his report to the Opposite Party No-1(one) that the vehicle was being repaired in the Opposite Party No.2(two)’s service centre but then the Opposite Party No-1 (one)did not refuse the Complainant to repair as has claimed that it is not their authorized service centre as claimed later on , secondly as per the averment made by the Opposite Party No-1(one) that the said surveyors is not deputed for assessment of the loss sustained rather has deputed one ER Kawaljit Singh to assess the loss and has accordingly assessed the loss and has reported and on the basis of the said report has paid the amount to the complainant, but it is seen from the said report of the Er Kawaljit Singh even if it was surveyed, it has been rightly denied by the Complainant as the same has been done behind his back, had it been fairly done then it should have been done in presence of the Complainant and he should have endorsed to that which has not been done, on the contrary the Opposite Party has denied the Bill submitted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the payment made by the complainant which amounts to un-fair trade practice and deficiencies of service such of our views has been fortified by the Honourable National Commission in it’s reported decision in the year 2014(3) 786 wherein the Honourable Commission Opined that surveyors should inspect the Vehicle in presence of the complainant and should get his report signed from the complainant ,in this case the same has not been followed which amounts to be deficiencies in rendering service to the complainant. More over the said Kawaljit Singh has not been Examined by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to substantiate his case. So in view o f the total circumstances and facts of the case as narrated above We are of the views that the answer to the affect as to whether there has been unfair trade practice and deficiencies in service committed on the part of the opposite Party, is answered in favor of the Complainant.
While dealing with the points as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the Further claim amount along with other claim for mental agony and others, since we have already discussed the case and it’s relating materials in details and expressed our logical consensus views in favor of the Complainant, and the Bill amount of Rs.2,55,005/-(Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand five )only and Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only have been paid by the complainant and to that affects no rebuttal evidence could be adduced from the side of the Opposite Party No-1(one), it is proved to be true hence in our view the Complainant is Entitled to the rest amount of his claim amounting to Rs.77,605/-(Rupees seventy seven thousand six hundred five)only and since the Opposite Party is found to be deficient in giving proper service and playing unfair trade practice causing mental and phusical harassment to the complainant, in our views he is entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only, As such our views expressed accordingly in favor of the Complainant,And since the Opposite Party No.2(two) has got no role to play with the case except repairing the damaged vehicle can not be held to be liable for any action .
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 82,605/- (Rupees eighty two thousand six hundred five) only with 6%(six percent) interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order, within one month from the date of receipt of the order in default of which an interest @ of 12% (twelve percent) would accrue on the total amount till the actual date of realization of the total amount and since our view is already expressed with regard to the role of the Opposite Party No.2(two), he is exonerated from any claim. .
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No-1(one), and the case is disposed off to-day in the open Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
