Haryana

Kaithal

164/19

Ajaib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Krishan Dhull

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.164/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.06.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:12.04.2023.

Ajaib Singh S/o Chandi Ram, resident of Village Ramana Ramani, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd., Building 87 M.G.Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.
2. New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office (Cantt.) (353501) 5406, Shree Complex IInd Floor Cross Road, No.3, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt., through its Branch Manager.
3. New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
4. Ashoka Leyland, Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Dealer Branch Office near Chotu Ram Chowk, Jind Road Bye Pass, Kaithal-136027, through its Authorized Person. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Krishan Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.No.1 to 3.

                Sh. Manoj Chauhan, Adv. for the respondent No.4.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ajaib Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased a truck bearing registration No.HR-64-A/2844 on 03.03.2016 and the above-said truck was hypothecated with the HINDUJA LELAND FINANCE LTD.  It is alleged that the complainant got insured the above-said vehicle with the OPs No.1 to 3 vide cashless policy No.35350131150100011354 through OP No.4 valid for the period w.e.f. 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2017.  The above-said vehicle met with an accident on 10.10.2016 in the area of Allahabad.  After assessing the loss by the surveyor, the OPs advised the complainant to bring the truck at Patiala for purpose of repair the truck.  After repair of truck, the said truck was standing in the Agency of OP No.4 and the officials of OP No.4 instead of supplying the truck to the complainant are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.  The OPs No.1 to 3 are responsible for the payment of all the installments/dues of the finance company as-well-as to complainant and also responsible to pay repair amount to the repairing agency i.e. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant had filed the complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat and the same was withdrawn due to non-jurisdiction with the liberty to file fresh complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction vide order dt. 08.05.2019.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission.  OPs No.1 to 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint written version raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs; that just after the receipt of intimation regarding accident, the answering OPs deputed Mr. Prem Kishan Singh, an independent surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report dt. 12.10.2016 and thereafter Mr. Baljinder Singh, an independent surveyor and loss assessor as final surveyor, who submitted his report dt. 30.01.2017 and vide which, he assessed the loss on net value for Rs.4,66,117/-, so, claim amount of Rs.4,65,475/- was paid to dealer M/s. Yashoda Automobiles on 08.02.2017.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.4 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the accidental vehicle in question was brought by the driver namely Sandeep of the complainant to the answering OP on 14.10.2016 for repairs purpose; that the vehicle was repaired on 18.01.2017 and post repairs survey was done on 20.01.2017; that the insurance company has issued the D.O. on 08.02.2017 for Rs.4,65,475/-; that the total costs on repairs of truck & body of the truck work, out of Rs.6,07,844/-.  The depreciation value of it comes to Rs.1,42,369/-.  The answering OP has requested the complainant to deposit Rs.1,42,369/- with the answering OP but the complainant has failed to deposit the said amount.  After legal notice sent to complainant, he has deposited the remaining settled amount and answering OP has returned the truck in good and running condition to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C17 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/B alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   OP No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-RW4/A,  Annexure-RW4/B and evidence of OP No.4 was closed vide court order dt. 22.09.2022.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a truck bearing registration No.HR-64-A/2844 on 03.03.2016 and the above-said truck was hypothecated with the HINDUJA LELAND FINANCE LTD.  It is argued that the complainant got insured the above-said vehicle with the OPs No.1 to 3 vide cashless policy No.35350131150100011354 through OP No.4 valid for the period w.e.f. 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2017.  The above-said vehicle met with an accident on 10.10.2016 in the area of Allahabad.  After assessing the loss by the surveyor, the OPs advised the complainant to bring the truck at Patiala for purpose of repair the truck.  After repair of truck, the said truck was standing in the Agency of OP No.4 and the officials of OP No.4 instead of supplying the truck to the complainant are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.  The OPs No.1 to 3 are responsible for the payment of all the installments/dues of the finance company as-well-as to complainant and also responsible to pay repair amount to the repairing agency i.e. Yashoda Motors Pvt. Ltd.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the case law titled as UII Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 16.10.2019 bearing revision petition No.2598 of 2012. 

8.             Ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 argued that just after the receipt of intimation regarding accident, the OPs deputed Mr. Prem Kishan Singh, an independent surveyor and loss assessor, who submitted his report dt. 12.10.2016 and thereafter Mr. Baljinder Singh, an independent surveyor and loss assessor as final surveyor, who submitted his report dt. 30.01.2017 and vide which, he assessed the loss on net value for Rs.4,66,117/-, so, claim amount of Rs.4,65,475/- was paid to dealer M/s. Yashoda Automobiles on 08.02.2017.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has placed on file written arguments.  Ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 placed reliance upon the case law titled as OIC Vs. Rama Reddy 11(2006) CPJ 339 (NC); titled as Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & another decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.09.2021 bearing Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2018.  He has also placed reliance upon the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 22-C.Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat, sub section (2) envisages that “After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute. 

9.             Ld. counsel for the OP no.4 argued that the accidental vehicle in question was brought by the driver namely Sandeep of the complainant to the OP NO.4 on 14.10.2016 for repairs purpose.  It is argued that the vehicle was repaired on 18.01.2017 and post repairs survey was done on 20.01.2017.  It is further argued that the insurance company has issued the D.O. on 08.02.2017 for Rs.4,65,475/- and the total costs on repairs of truck & body of the truck work, out of Rs.6,07,844/-.  The depreciation value of it comes to Rs.1,42,369/-.  The OP No.4 has requested the complainant to deposit Rs.1,42,369/- with the OP No.4 but the complainant has failed to deposit the said amount.  After legal notice sent to complainant, he has deposited the remaining settled amount and OP No.4 has returned the truck in good and running condition to the complainant.   

10.            It is clear from the surveyor report namely Baljinder Singh as per Annexure-R4 that he assessed the loss on net value for Rs.4,66,117/.  It is also not disputed that the claim amount of Rs.4,65,475/- was paid to dealer M/s. Yashoda Automobiles on 08.02.2017.  It is also clear that before filing the present complaint, the complainant had approached before Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Service, Kaithal and the same was withdrawn as per Annexure-C12.  Ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has drawn our attention towards Section 22-C.Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat, sub section (2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which envisages as under:-

         “(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before any Court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of dispute:

        Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law:

        Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees:

        Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification, increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second provisio in consultation with the Central Authority.

        (2) After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute.”

After an application is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute.

11.            So, in view of aforesaid Section 22-C(2) of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it is amply clear that no party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in the same dispute.   Moreover, the claim amount of Rs.4,65,475/- was already paid to dealer M/s. Yashoda Automobiles on 08.02.2017.  So, nothing remains more to be adjudicated in the present complaint.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be substantiated by cogent evidence.  

12.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.