DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 344 of 12-11-2009<br /> Decided on : 26-02-2010 <br /> <br /> Capt. Gulzar Singh Sharma, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Billu Ram, R/o House. No. 405 (185), Ward No. 22, Guru Nanak Basti, Sangria (Raj.) now residing in Lal Singh Basti, Near Canal Rest House, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Bank Bazar, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.Padam Tata Motors Workshop, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Managing Director/Proprietor.<br /> 3.The General Manager, Padam Tata Motor Workshop, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. S.K. Sharma, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for<br /> opposite party No. 1.<br /> Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of Tata Winger Car No. PB-03R/6521 which was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai,. He purchased Cashless Policy No. 233291/31/2009/907 for the period from 22-02-2009 to 21-02-2010 from opposite party No. 1. On 08-07-2009 at about 9.15 p.m. while coming from Ludhiana to Bathinda, the said car met with an accident near Mahal Kalan. He gave intimation of loss to opposite party No. 1 and financer. Opposite party No. 1 got conducted spot and final survey. He brought the vehicle at Bathinda and took it to authorised dealers and service Station of Tata Motors, i.e. opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. Opposite party No. 1 has contract with opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 for repair of the vehicles and it is the responsibility of the opposite parties to repair the vehicle within 15 days as per terms of the policy. He made repeated requests to the opposite parties to repair the vehicle in question, but to no effect. He also got issued legal notice dated 08-09-2009, but that also paid deaf year. The complainant alleges that due to non-repair of the vehicle, he cannot not ply it and is unable to pay the installment of loan. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to repair his vehicle and pay him compensation and costs.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed separate reply stating therein that intimation of loss was received and surveyors were deputed to asses the loss of the accidental vehicle. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,21,000/-. It processed the claim and payment of Rs. 2,21,700/- has been made to opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 vide cheque dated 08-12-2009 and they accepted the same as full and final payment for repairs carried out by them. Amount of depreciation has to be paid by the complainant to them. It has been denied that policy in question is a cashless policy.<br /> 3. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 filed joint reply and submitted that the vehicle in question was throughly repaired and bill No. 1051 dated 13-10-2009 for Rs. 3,13,652/- was prepared. They made various requests to the complainant to lift the vehicle, but the complainant neither paid the amount nor lifted the vehicle. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 1 has submitted cheque dated 08-12-2009 for Rs. 2,21,700/- in favour of replying opposite parties before this Forum and they accepted the same under protest and the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount. <br /> 4. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 6. The complainant claims that he has purchased a cashless Insurance policy from opposite party No. 1 which had contract with opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 for repair of the insured vehicle against cashless policy.<br /> 7. In brief, his claim is that as per policy, his accidental vehicle was to be repaired by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 without receiving any money from him and that the payment of repair charges was to be paid directly by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party Nos. 2 & 3. Opposite party No. 1 in para No. 1 on merits of its written reply has denied that it was a cashless policy. In their joint written reply, opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 remained silent on this aspect of the matter. Opposite party No. 1 has pleaded in para No. 4 of reply on merits that payment of Rs. 2,21,700/- is being made to the complainant. The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 have pleaded in their reply that they have received a cheque dated 8-12-2009 of Rs. 2,21,700/- from opposite party No. 1 on account of part payment of repaired vehicle in question. There is no explanation on record as to why the payment of Rs. 2,21,700/- was made by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and the latter had not accepted it if it was not a cashless policy. Had the policy in question not been cash less policy as has been pleaded by opposite party No. 1, the payment of Rs. 2,21,700/- would have been made directly to the complainant. Therefore, though opposite party No. 1 denied that it was a cash less policy yet act and conduct of the opposite parties has established beyond any doubt that the policy in question was a cashless policy. Accordingly, the complainant <br /> <br /> <br /> was not to pay anything to opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 for repair of the vehicle.<br /> 8. The surveyor of the opposite party No. 1 assessed the loss caused to the vehicle in question to the extent of Rs. 2,21,000/- as per survey report Ex. R-4, whereas opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 claim the repair charges of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs. 3,13,652/-.<br /> 9. The payment of the repair charges of the vehicle in question is a matter between opposite party 1 and opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 because the Insurance policy was cashless policy. The complainant has nothing to do with this controversy. He is entitled to the delivery of the repaired vehicle which must be roadworthy to his satisfaction.<br /> 10. As per stand taken by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, repaired vehicle in question is lying with them. The complainant had been forced to file this complaint unnecessarily due to ill conceived defence of the opposite parties. Hence, in addition to the return of the vehicle in question fully repaired to his satisfaction, he is also entitled to compensation for his mental tension and for monetary loss.<br /> 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 2,000/- as cost and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and deprivation of income. The vehicle in question is directed to be delivered to the complainant fully repaired to his satisfaction. <br /> 12. The opposite parties are liable to make the compliance of this order jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-02-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member <br />