BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.127 of 2016

Date of Instt. 17.03.2016

Date of Decision : 11.08.2016

Vipul Mahajan son of Rakesh Mahajan, r/o 89-90, Kalia Colony, near Verka Milk Plant, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-I, SCO-332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022.

2.National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office:- The Mall, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.

3.Padam Cars Pvt Ltd., Ludhiana, P.O.Jugiana, GT Road, Ludhiana.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.RS Arora Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Rakesh Kumar Kashyap, Branch Manager of Padam Cars (P) Ltd., on behalf of OP No.3.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a Renault Duster Car from OP No.3 and got the said car insured with OP No.2 for the period from 25.6.2014 to 24.6.2015 vide insurance cover note No.401210466385 dated 25.6.2014. The said car met with an accident on 22.5.2015 in the area near Maqsudan Flyover, Jalandhar. Complainant submitted that he took help from the other source and got the car lifted from the place of accident to other place by spending Rs.6000/- and on the next day i.e. 23.5.2015, complainant informed the OP No.2 regarding the aforesaid accident. On the directions of OP No.2 as there is no workshop at Jalandhar, the complainant took his Duster Car from Jalandhar to workshop at Ludhiana by spending a sum of Rs.4000/-. OP No.3 repaired the said car and estimated the amount for the repair of the said car Rs.65,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- from the OPs which was paid by him in connection with repair of the aforesaid vehicle including the transportation but the OP did not pay the amount to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- which the complainant spent for the repair of his car. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply OPs No.1 & 2 pleaded that complainant concealed the material facts from this Forum. The damage of the vehicle was not to the tune of Rs.65,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Whereas the loss assessed to the tune of Rs.4,62,412/-. The complainant could not point out any fault with the survey done. After complete repair, the complainant gave to the insurance company the satisfaction voucher under his signatures at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle from the OP No.3. Nothing remained more to be paid and the least Rs.65,000/-. Complainant never challenged the surveyor report and the OPs No.1 & 2 had paid the claim to the complainant on the basis of this survey report.

3. In its written reply, OP No.3 pleaded that the complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.3 at Ludhiana vide invoice dated 9.2.2015. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.2. The repair of the vehicle in question was carried out of OP No.3 at Ludhiana and they raised the invoice to the tune of Rs.5,46,874/-. However, the insurance company paid a sum of Rs.4,54,812/- to OP No.3 and the balance amount of Rs.92062/- was due payable by complainant to OP No.3. Complainant paid Rs.65,000/- to the OP No.3 and the balance amount of Rs.27,062/- was given discount to the complainant at the time of making the payment and releasing out the vehicle in question to the complainant after due accidental repairs. OP No.3 submitted that entire work was done by OP No.3 at Ludhiana but no cause of action accrued to the complainant against OP No.3 at Jalandhar. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against OP No.3.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6 and closed evidence. Further branch manager of OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster Car from OP No.3 and got the said car insured with OP No.2 for the period from 25.6.2014 to 24.6.2015 vide insurance cover note No.401210466385 dated 25.6.2014 Ex.C1. The said car met with an accident on 22.5.2015 in the area near Maqsudan Flyover, Jalandhar. The complainant submitted that he took help from the other source and got the car lifted from the place of accident to other place by spending Rs.6000/- and on the next day i.e. 23.5.2015, complainant informed the OP No.2 regarding the aforesaid accident. On the directions of OP No.2 as there is no workshop at Jalandhar, the complainant took his Duster Car from Jalandhar to workshop at Ludhiana by spending a sum of Rs.4000/-, receipt in this regard is Ex.C2. OP No.3 repaired the said car and estimated the amount for the repair of the said car Rs.65,000/-. The said receipt issued by OP No.3 is Ex.C3. Thereafter, the complainant demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- from the OP which was paid by him in connection with repair of the aforesaid vehicle including the transportation but the OP did not pay the amount to the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The damage of the vehicle was not to the tune of Rs.65,000/- as alleged by the complainant, whereas the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,62,412/-. On receipt of the intimation regarding the accident of the insured vehicle, OP appointed surveyor Er.Parveen Goyal who conducted survey and assessed the net loss to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,62,412.95/- vide his report Ex.O1 dated 16.9.2015 less scarp value and an amount of Rs.4,54,812 was paid by OPs No.1 & 2 to directly to OP No.3 as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant, as per survey report and the same was received by OP No.3 vide receipt Ex.O2 and the complainant has given satisfaction voucher in this regard Ex.O3. Complainant never challenged the surveyor report Ex.O1 and the OPs No.1 & 2 had paid the claim to the complainant on the basis of this survey report. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 submitted that as such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.3 at Ludhiana vide invoice dated 9.2.2015. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.2. The repair of the vehicle in question was carried out at service station of OP No.3 at Ludhiana and they raised the invoice to the tune of Rs.5,46,874/- at Ludhiana. However, the insurance company paid a sum of Rs.4,54,812/- to OP No.3 vide voucher Ex.O6 and balance amount of Rs.92,062/- was due payable by complainant to OP No.3. Complainant paid Rs.65,000/- to the OP No.3 and balance amount of Rs.27,062/- was given discount to the complainant at the time of making the payment and released out the vehicle in question to the complainant after due accidental repairs. OP No.3 submitted that entire work was done by OP No.3 at Ludhiana but no cause of action accrued to the complainant against OP No.3 at Jalandhar. This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against OP No.3. OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle Duster Car bearing registration No.PB-08-CT-0338 from OP No.3 at Ludhiana and the said car was got insured with OP No.2 National Insurance Company Limited, Branch at Bathinda vide insurance cover note Ex.C1 for the period from 25.6.2014 to 24.6.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident on 22.5.2015 and the same was taken to the service station of OP No.3 at Ludhiana and the said vehicle was repaired by OP No.3 at Ludhiana. So, no cause of action had accrued to the complainant against OP No.3 at Jalandhar. Moreover, there is no branch office of OP No.3 at Jalandhar. The entire business is being done by OP No.3 at Ludhiana and OP No.3 did the entire work i.e. sold the car to the complainant at Ludhiana and repaired the car of the complainant at Ludhiana and they raised the demand of amount of the repair from the complainant at Ludhiana and the payment of the entire amount of repair of the car of the complainant was made by complainant or the insurance company to OP No.3 at Ludhiana. Therefore, this Forum is of the view that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against OP No.3 at Jalandhar and as such this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide any claim case of the complainant against OP No.3 at Jalandhar. Resultantly, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant against OP No.3 being barred by territorial jurisdiction. However, complainant has, if any, claim against OP No.3, he is at liberty to file the complaint or civil suit against OP No.3 before the appropriate Forum/Court at Ludhiana having territorial jurisdiction.

11. As regards claim case of complainant against OPs No.1 & 2, the vehicle in question was duly insured with OPs No.1 & 2 for the period from 25.6.2014 to 24.6.2015 vide insurance cover note Ex.C1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 22.5.2015. On receipt of intimation regarding the loss to the vehicle from the complainant, OPs No.1 & 2 deputed their surveyor to assess the loss accrued to the vehicle of the complainant. Said surveyor and loss assessor Er.Parveen Kumar Goyal vide his report dated 16.9.2015 Ex.O1 assessed the net loss payable by OPs No.1 & 2 to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,62,414.95paise with deduction of scrap value. Consequently, the complainant gave satisfaction voucher Ex.O3 and the OP after legal deduction assessed the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.4,54,812/-. So, on the basis of satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant Ex.O3, OPs No.1 & 2 paid this amount Rs.4,54,812/- directly to OP No.3 vide receipt Ex.O6 and Ex.O2. Complainant never challenged the report of surveyor. It is well settled law that the report of surveyor is best piece of evidence and on the basis of which claim of the complainant can be settled unless and until, the complainant challenges the report of the surveyor and succeeds in improving that the surveyor has not considered certain items of the complainant. But here in this case, the complainant has never challenged the report of the surveyor Ex.O1 nor he pointed out any defect in the surveyor report nor could point out as to whether any item has been left unconsidered by the surveyor. So, the OPs No.1 & 2 were justified in settling the claim of the complainant on the basis of surveyor report Ex.O1 and in making the payment of the claim to OP No.3 on the basis of satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant Ex.O3. Therefore, complainant is failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.

12. Consequently, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua the complainant. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in this complaint of the complainant against OPs No.1 & 2. As such, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

11.08.2016 Member President