(AS PER A.A.JAIN, HON’BLE MEMBER)
The complainant has filed this complaint against O.Ps. claiming various reliefs as per Prayer clause. The facts of the case in brief are as under.:
1 Complainant is an educated unemployed person. He has purchased TATA 407 Metador with the financial help of D.I.C. Gondia and S.B.I. Tirora Branch. The cost of said vehicle was about Rs.5,20,000/- . The complainant has got insured his new TATA vehicle bearing No. MH-35 K/492 from O.P.No.3 by paying Rs.13863/- as premium for one year i.e. from 18-11-2005 to 17-11-2006. Then during this period of validity of policy, on 02-03-2006 at about 20.30 Hrs. , the said vehicle met with an accident near village Dharampur which fall under the jurisdiction of Sakoli (Bhandara district) Police station.
2 The complainant has immediately informed to O.P.No.3 about the accident. O.P.No.3 instructed to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from M/s. Jaika Motors Ltd. Nagpur who is authorized dealer for TATA Vehicles. Accordingly the complainant has got repaired the said vehicle from the said authorised dealer. Complainant has repaired and replaced the necessary parts from Jaika Motors Ltd. By paying Rs.83002/- and towing charges Rs.3500/- and he submitted to the O.P. and he submitted to the O.P., all money receipts and vouchers and cash receipts and claimed Rs.86502/- from O.P.No.3 on dated 12-04-2006.
3 After 4 months complainant received a letter from O.P.No.3 on dt.11-08-2006 along with discharge voucher only for Rs.32,900/- towards the full and final settlement of his aforesaid claim. Complainant expressed his readiness to accept, the amount of Rs.32,900/- ‘Under Protest’, but O.P.No.3 denied to grant such right . Thus O.P.No.3 repudiated the claim.
4 So complainant filed this complaint against all O.P. praying for recovery of claim of Rs. 86502/- with interest @ 10.25% for whole loan amount i.e. Rs.3,84,000/- with compensation and cost (Ex.1).
5
6 Complainant claimed the following amount
(A) Rs.88,095/- for repairing charges
(B) Rs.10,000/- towards mental & physical harassment.
(C) Rs.1,000/- cost of the complaint.
Total Rs.1,00,000/- (Exh.1)
7 In response to notice U/s. 13 of C.P.Act 1986 O.P. appeared and filed its reply and submitted that there are licensed insurance surveyors approved/ empanelled by insurance regulatory and development authority to inspect and assess the losses as per their technical expertise and give their opinion to insurance company regarding the losses.
8 The O.P. further submitted that after receiving the information, Mr. Sanjay Shrivastav was appointed as the spot surveyor who inspected the damages at the initial stage and submitted his report . After receipt of the claim form and estimate of repairs / replacement of parts Shri. P.M.Jain , chartered engineer and surveyor and loss assessor was deputed as final surveyor to inspect in details the losses sustained by the vehicle and assess the losses who has accordingly given his final survey report dated 20-11-2006 after visiting and verifying the vehicle in detail. That on date 20-11-2006 the surveyor of the O.P. submitted his report and on date 23-11-2006 the surveyor of O.P. demanded some documents from the complainant through his letter and also advised to produce the accidental vehicle for re-inspection after repairing, but the complainant neither submitted the required documents nor produced the vehicle for re-inspection after repairing. The complainant has only submitted the R.C.Book on 28-11-2006. Further the O.P. submitted that the O.P. has issued reminders of the letter issued on 23-11-2006 on 22-12-2006, 07-03-2007 and final reminder on 16-03-2006 but the complainant failed to comply the required documents and also failed to produce the vehicle for re-inspection, hence there is no other alternative before the O.p. to close the file . The O.P. submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part.
9 The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant has not produced the bills of repairing, replaced parts, etc. as claimed by the complainant and the bills produced in court are not the bills but these were the copies of the estimates which has been manipulated and forged by the complainant bogusly. Due to above facts the complainant is not entitled for any claim as per prayed by him.
10 The O.P. further submitted that the petition filed by the complainant is false, bogus and baseless and immature hence the complainant is at his fault and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
11 On verifying all records and hearing argument from both parties and gone through the photographs submitted by both the parties the only point arose for our consideration whether the complainant is entitled for any relief and our finding is “Complainant is Partly Entitled” due to following reasons.
REASONS
7 Clause 2 (d) (ii) of Consumers Protection Act 1986 defines ‘Consumer’ as under :
“Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not inclu
14 That , as the O.Ps. took more than 5 months time to settle the claim unilaterally at Rs.32,977/- as against the claim of the complainant for Rs.83002/- we find no hesitation to hold that there has been gross negligence on the part of the O.P., because of which the complainant had to suffer mental torture and financial loss as admittedly the complainant had purchased the vehicle for his self employment by getting finance from S.B.I. and he is required to repay instalments, which include interest on the loan amount. As such we hold that there is deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps.
15 As per the condition of agreement with insurance Co. complainant cannot allowed to recover full amount of rubber parts. He has to accept only 50% cost of rubber parts, full cost of new parts, without any depreciation, and full cost of labour charges with less Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- as cost of salvage.
16 So as per the photographs produced by O.P. at the time of argument, by gone through all photographs , it is clear that vehicle was actually repaired at Tata’s Jaika Motors workshop for smoot running of vehicle . So we proceed to pass following Order : ORDER
1 Complaint is allowed.
2 O.P.No. 1 to 3 directed to pay Rs.83002/- jointly and severally as the full and final payment of claim of accidental vehicle of complainant and Rs.3500/- as toeing charges.
3 O.Ps. can deduct Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- as salvage charges and also deduct 50% cost of new rubber parts which was changed at Jaika Motors Ltd.
4 O.Ps. also directed to pay interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum from the date of claim i.e. 08.06.2006 till realization and also cost of complaint & mental and physical harrasmant charges Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
