DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM GURGAON-122001.

                                                 Consumer Complaint No: 597 of 2009.                                                                        Date of Institution: 16.07.2009                                                                  Date of Decision: 07.09.2015.

Jintak Engineers Pvt. Ltd through its Director, Shri Aseem Takyar (Plot No.144, Phase-1, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122 016)

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd through Branch Manager, SCO 41-43, Sector 31, 32-A, Gurgaon-122002.

                                                                                       ..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Shri V.K.Bhardwaj, Adv for the opposite party.

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that Complainant Company has got its Ford Ikon Car bearing Regd. No. DL 9C G 1791 insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.361400/31/07/6100000573 which was valid from 29.05.2007 to 28.05.2008 with IDV of Rs.3, 50,000/-. The above said car met with an accident on 10.07.2007 and thereafter complainant  intimated the opposite party on 11.07.2007 regarding the occurrence. The complainant submitted the estimate for Rs.36,101/- obtained from M/s Harpreet Ford, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. The opposite party appointed Shri Nirmal Rai surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant has got replaced broken glass and head light after paying Rs.8300/- to M/s Roop Traders, Gurgaon. Against the total estimate of Rs.36,101/- the complainant has submitted the bills for only Rs.8300/- in the office of the opposite party but the opposite party failed to make the payment. Despite the persistent requests made by the complainant through various letters the opposite party offered the payment of Rs.4500/- against the claim of Rs.8300/- which was not acceptable to the complainant. The opposite party sent the cheque of Rs.4500/- which was returned by the complainant. Against the total estimate of Rs.36101/- the complainant has only asked for the claim of Rs.8300/- but the opposite party failed to settle the claim and thus, the opposite party is deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to release Rs.8300/- with interest @ 18 % p.a and to pay Rs.10,000-/ as damages for the harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.

2                 OP in its written reply has alleged that the complainant informed the repairer that the complainant  wanted to get the parts totally changed instead of minor repair and also getting other parts changed which were not on account of any accident as per the complainant himself and getting the painting of whole vehicle, the repairer M/s Harpreet had accordingly given estimate for all such works to Rs.36,101/-  as is evident from the report of surveyor which was not acceptable to the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to reimbursement of Rs.8300/- though they offered Rs.4500/-  and sent cheque which was returned by the complainant.

3                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on its part on the ground that complainant company has purchased a car bearing Regd. No. DL 9CG 1791 and got the same insured with the OP vide Policy No.361400/31/07/6100000573 which was valid from 29.05.2007 to 28.05.2008 with IDV of Rs.3, 50,000/-.  The above said vehicle met with an accident on 10.07.2007 and accordingly, an estimate of Rs.36,101/- was prepared by M/s Harpreet Ford, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Against the said estimate the complainant has submitted the bill of Rs.8300/- but the opposite party has wrongly and illegally sanctioned Rs.4500/- on the basis of the report of the surveyor and thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.8300/- but the opposite party  sent cheque of Rs.4500/-  to the complainant which was not acceptable to the complainant.

5                 However, the contention of the opposite party is that as per the report of the surveyor the cheque of Rs.4500/- was rightly sent to the complainant but it was returned back to the opposite party by the complainant. The complainant has  got changed the total parts damaged instead of getting minor repairing and thus has got prepared excessive estimate with ulterior motive.

6                 Therefore after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on file it is evident that the vehicle in question which was insured with the opposite party at the time of occurrence has met with an accident on 10.07.2007. The complainant submitted the bill of repair to the tune of Rs.8300/- against the total estimate of Rs.36101/- but the opposite has sanctioned only Rs.4500/- on the basis of surveyor report. However, there is no cogent reason in the survey report to assess Rs.4500/- as against the total estimate of Rs.36101/-.  However, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.8300/- on account of purchase of Head Light (Left Side) and Front Mirror and Labour Charges  regarding which he has placed on file Bill No.261 and 263 dated 19.07.2007 issued by Roop Trader, 416, Shiv Nagar, Gurgaon. Therefore, the genuineness of claim of Rs.8300/- cannot be doubted rather the same seems to be very genuine as against the total estimate of Rs36,101/- and as such issuance of cheque to the tune of Rs.4500/- as against the claimed amount of Rs.8,300/- was not justified and as such nonpayment of Rs.8300/- tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, we  direct the opposite party to pay Rs.8300/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.07.2009 till realization. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.3100/- as litigation expenses.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                                                     (Subhash Goyal)

07.09.2015                                                                                                                            President,

                                                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                               Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member