Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/102/2014

Ram Parshad Shastri - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Dharambir Singh

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 102 of  2014.

                                                                                           Date of institution: 12.2.2014

                                                                                           Date of decision: 26.11.2015.

 

Ram Parshad Shastri aged about 43 years son of Sh. Ram Dayal Sharma resident of H. No. 1309/A, Modern Colony, Kansapur Road, Yamuna Nagar now residing at H. No. 52, Geeta Colony, Kansapur Road, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Opp. Madhu Petrol Pump, Jagadhri-Yamuna Nagar Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1215, 12^th Floor, Nursing House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Head/General Manager.
3. Eakansh Wheels, K.M. Stone 126, Vill. Tepla (Saha), State Highway No.5, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt-133001 through its Prop. /Partner. 

 

                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Dharamvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Smt. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

              None for Op No.3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Ram Parshad filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to put the damaged car and high security number plate in proper condition and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case are that complainant has got insured his car bearing registration No. HR-02AB-2959 Maruti Swift VDI from the OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy bearing No. 31260031130101177358 w.e.f. 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 through Op No.3.

3.                     On 24.12.2013 when the complainant was on the way on Radaur road near Damla a stone suddenly struck on the front side glass of his aforesaid car due to which the front side of the glass of car was broken and when complainant stopped his car aside road on the kacha berm, the running board ( penal below left side door) and left side door struck to a stone lying on the kacha berm, due to which the running board and left side door of the aforesaid car were damaged. To get the repair of his car, the complainant contacted the OP No.3 and requested them to repair the aforesaid damaged car. On this OP No.3 changed the damaged glass of the vehicle but refused to repair the damaged running board and door by saying that they will repair the same after few days. As per saying of OP No.3 when complainant again contacted to OP No.3 to get repair the aforesaid damaged running board and door, the OP No.3 averted the complainant by saying to come after few days. As such since then the OP No.3 time to time averted the complainant on one pretext or the other and lastly on 23.1.2014 when the complainant again visited the OP No.3 and requested them to remove the  said defect, the OP No.3 kept the car of the complainant for repair but did not repair the aforesaid car of the complainant then complainant got served a legal notice on 27.1.2014 calling therein to repair the damaged parts of the car immediately and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Ultimately, the repair work was done by OP No.3 which was not to the satisfaction of the complainant. When the complainant picked up his car then he found that OP No.3 have done many defects in the said car as they have broken seals of high security registration number plate and also tempered with the interior mechanism of the car due to which the mileage of the car reduced drastically. From the above said act and conduct of the OP No.3 it is clear that OPs indulged in the wrong and illegal act and guilty of deficient and negligent services to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

 4.                    Upon notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 as the complainant has not leveled any single allegations of deficiency in service against the OPs No.1 & 2. The complainant had purchased a cashless policy from OPs No.1 & 2 through OP No.3. Copy of which is Ex. R-1. It has been further stated that OPs No.1 & 2 had already made full and final payment to OP No.3 and the complainant had executed satisfaction voucher in this regard and rest all the allegations were  denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     OP No.3 also appeared and filed its written statement separately by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, unsustainable in the eyes of law, no territorial jurisdiction, no locus standi, does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(1) and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint by the complainant has been specifically denied. It is submitted that true facts of the complaint are that complainant brought his accidental car to the workshop of OP No.3 on 23.1.2014 and requested the OPs to get it repaired under the cashless insurance policy which was source by Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited. The OP No.3 advised the complainant to firstly intimate his claim to the insurance company and after the approval and sanctioning of the claim by the insurance company, they will able to give the benefits of cashless insurance. On this complainant intimated his claim on 23.1.2014 to the insurance company who conducted the survey and as per estimate approved by the insurance company, OP No.3 repaired the car in question without any delay within time and delivered the repair car to the complainant on 30.1.2014 and the complainant has also given his satisfaction note to the OP No.3 to this effect and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

6.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipt of bill dated 26.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 1370/- as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Job Order Card dated 23.1.2014 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of receipt of payment dated 30.1.2014 of Rs. 1740/- as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of invoice/cash memo dated 30.1.2014 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of acknowledgment as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of postal receipts as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of Legal Notice dated 27.1.2014 as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. B.L.Jagwan, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ambala Cantt as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of surveyor report of Sudhir Dhingra as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of claim passed voucher as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 whereas OP No.3 failed to file any evidence and evidence of OP No.3 was closed by court order. However, counsel for the OP No.3 filed satisfaction note with his written statement as Annexure R3/1.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely and carefully.

9.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that OP No.3 changed the damaged glass of the vehicle but refused to repair the damaged running board and door by saying that they will repair the same after few days and lastly on 23.1.2014 OP No.3 kept the car of the complainant for repair but when the complainant picked up his repaired car then he found that OP No.3 have done many defects in the said car as they have broken seals of high security registration number plate and also tempered with the interior mechanism of the car due to which the mileage of the car reduced drastically and further even the repair done by OP No.3 was also not up to the mark. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is liable to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 hotly argued that the insurance company had made the payment of Rs. 3028/- to the complainant as assessed by the Surveyor Mr. Sudhir Dhingra which is evident from the surveyor report (Annexure R-1) and satisfaction note of the complainant as Annexure R3/1, except this no other claim was lodged by the complainant or OP No.3 with the OPs No.1 & 2. Even not a single word or allegations have been mentioned in the complaint of the complainant against OPs No.1 & 2. Hence, the complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is liable to be dismissed.

11.                   It has been submitted on behalf of OP No.3 that complainant intimated his claim on 23.1.2014 to the insurance company and on receipt of the intimation surveyor was deputed by the insurance company who conducted the survey and as per estimate approved by the insurance company, OP No.3 repaired the car in question without any delay within time and delivered the repaired car to the complainant on 30.1.2014 and the complainant has also given his satisfaction note to the OP No.3. Copy of which is Ex. R3/1.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.                   After going through the arguments, pleadings and documents filed we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has remains totally failed to prove by cogent evidence that any damage was caused to the seals of high security  registration number plate and have also tempered with interior mechanism of the car due to which the mileage of the car reduced drastically. Further the complainant also remained failed to prove that the repair work done by the OP No.3 in what manner was not up to mark and in the absence of any documentary evidence or any report of mechanic or expert opinion, this Forum is not able to hold that there is any negligence on the part of OP No.3. Further no allegation has been leveled against OPs No.1 & 2 by the complainant in his complaint. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is also liable to be dismissed. Whatsoever claim was lodged with OPs No.1 & 2, the same was paid to the complainant which is evident from the surveyor report Annexure R-1 and R-2.

13.                   Resultantly, after going through the above noted discussion, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 26.11.2015.

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER