BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 35 of 2020
Date of Institution : 16.01.2020
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024
Ram Kishan son of Sh. Goma Ram, resident of village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Paras Trucks, Authorized Dealer, Ashoka Leyland India Limited Hisar road Moriwala Sirsa (Head Office – 11 K.M. stone, Bye Pass Road, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar, through its Manager/ owner Sh. Vallabh Jain).
2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limtied, 1st Floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt., Ambala- 133001 through its Manager Sh. Tarun Pandey/ any other Authorized representative/ Principal Officer.
3. Sh. Deepak Lamba workshop Manager, Ashoka Leyland, Main Office, 11 K.M. Stone, Bye Pass Road, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar.
….Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended up to date).
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 3.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended up to date against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased a brand new truck make Ashoka Leyland from op no.1 and op no.1 advised him to get insured the said truck from op no.2 as he has tie up with op no.2. Both the ops also assured him that this is a zero depreciation policy and complainant is entitled to cashless repairs across all Ashoka Leyland dealership and also additional towing charges etc and EMI cover etc. The complainant accordingly got insured his truck from op no.2 vide policy No. 61009126 dated 12.04.2019. It is further averred that unfortunately on 16.06.2019, the said truck of complainant bearing registration No. HR 57A/1919 met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation in this regard was given to both the ops no.1 and 2 and they advised him to get repair the same from op no.3 and as such complainant brought his damaged truck to op no.3 on 17.06.2019 who after checking the insurance documents assured him to repair the truck within 12/15 days on cashless basis but after 15 days, ops no.1 and 3 told him that truck has not been repaired so far and asked him to take delivery after some time and also told that in case delivery is deferred for more than 15 days, the EMI of the truck during repairing period would also be paid by insurance company/ op no.2 as same is included in the insurance policy. That on 10.07.2019 when complainant again approached op no.3, he asked him that if he wants to take delivery as soon as possible, he has to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the account of op no.3 and having no alternative, he deposited Rs.15,000/- in the account of op no.3 but op no.3 stated that repairing work has not been started yet and assured to expedite the repairing work and same will be delivered to him within a month. It is further averred that after one month on 10.08.2019 when complainant again approached op no.3 for taking delivery of his truck, op no.1 asked him to deposit Rs.30,000/- and despite cashless policy, after raising objection in this regard complainant under constrained circumstances with protest deposited Rs.30,000/- with op no.1 in cash vide receipt no. 1612 dated 10.08.2019. That truck was at last delivered to him by op no.1 after repairing but he noticed that many noises coming out of the truck and on close scrutiny, it was found that repair has not been done up to mark and to the extent as shown in the papers. Most of the parts which have been shown replaced by new one in papers have actually not been replaced and same damaged parts have been installed after denting and painting, however in the bill/ insurance invoice all these parts have been shown to be replaced with new one. It is further averred that in the bill/ insurance invoice as much as 43 parts have been shown to be replaced but as matter of fact the 20/22 major parts which have been shown replaced have not been replaced and only rest of the small parts have been replaced and this fact can be verified anytime from the mechanical inspection of truck. That due to misdeed and unauthorized action committed by ops no.1 and 3 in order to gain unlawfully from complainant they have caused heavy monetary loss and harassment to the complainant and complainant is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.30,000/- deposited with op no.1 and Rs.15,000/- deposited with op no.3 and is also entitled to recover amount of EMI from op no.2 and is also entitled to cashless re-repairing of the truck upto standard norms of Ashoka Leyland India Ltd. by replacing all the faulty parts/ un-replaced parts of the truck including cabin of the truck. It is further averred that complainant is legally entitled to get the claimed amount alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of incident till realization. The ops were approached and were requested several times to admit his claim and a legal notice dated 31.08.2019 was also got served to the ops but after postponing the matter with one pretext or the other, the ops have totally effused to do so about a week back. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering ops never advised the complainant to get his truck from op no.2. On 17.06.2019 complainant had brought his vehicle at the workshop of op no.1 in accidental condition for repairs and answering ops conducted necessary repairs. On 26.07.2019, the vehicle was ready and its due intimation was given to complainant and complainant was further informed that the costs of the repairs and replacement of damaged part is Rs.5,46,558/-. On 09.08.2019, the op no.1 received a demand order of Rs.4,90,000/- from insurance company and on 10.08.2019 complainant visited the workshop of op no.1 and after adjusting the price of scrape/ salvage, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- in cash to op no.1 and thereby settled the account of repairs and took delivery after full satisfaction with the working and performance of the vehicle. It is further submitted that thereafter also complainant had brought his vehicle at Sirsa workshop of op no.1 for its periodical inspection/ service and during such visits, he never reported any defect in the said vehicle and even no defect was found in the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against the op no.2 in the light of fact that claim lodged by complainant with regard to damages of his vehicle has already been settled as per assessment made by the Surveyor appointed by insurance company. The claim of complainant was settled as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy obtained by him and assessed amount of Rs.4,90,071.29 already disbursed to the repairer Paras Trucks i.e. op no.1 as cashless settlements, besides an amount of Rs.14,000/- paid to the complainant for towing charges of the accidental vehicle, through NEFTs dated 05.09.2019. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.2. It is further submitted that depreciation waiver cover under a motor insurance policy does not cover all the expenses incurring in repairing of a vehicle. A depreciation waiver only covers depreciation on parts which are covered in the insurance policy as such there parts are later distinguished from the ones not covered in the policy and hence allowed by the Surveyor and approved by the company in cases of a partial loss. Any difference in the surveyor assessment and invoice raised by the repairer needs to be borne by the policy holder himself. The Surveyor assessed the loss keeping in view of compulsory excess clause, considering the salvage value and excluding the consumable parts which were not covered under the policy. It is further submitted that no such cover of repayment of EMIs is available in the policy in question, hence the said demand of complainant is illegal and beyond the scope of insurance policy and hence cannot be considered. Further as alleged, if there is issue with the repair work carried out by the repairer is a matter between complainant and repairer. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar son of Sh. Goma Ram driver as Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C12 and Ex. CW2/B.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Ms. Gurvinder Kaur, General Manager & authorized signatory as Ex.R1. Ops no.1 and 3 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Gautam, Credit Manager as Ex.R2 and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R14.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. From the certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C2, it is evident that vehicle of the complainant i.e. Truck bearing registration No. HR 57A/1919 was insured with op no.2 for insured declared value of Rs.16,15,000/- for the period 12.04.2019 to 11.04.2020. There is also no dispute of the fact that said insured truck of the complainant met with an accident on 16.06.2019 during the period of policy and said truck was got repaired by complainant from op no.1. However, against the invoice of the amount of Rs.5,46,558/- for repair work of truck in question issued by op no.1, the amount of Rs.4,90,071/- was paid to op no.1 by op no.2 and op no.2 also claim that besides the above said amount of Rs.4,90,071/- which has been paid to op no.1 on the basis of Surveyor’s report, an amount of Rs.14,000/- being towing charges has also been paid to the complainant through NEFT on 05.09.2019. The complainant has not denied payment of this amount of Rs.14,000/- and has not proved the fact through any cogent and convincing evidence that he has not received the said amount of Rs.14,000/- being towing charges. However, the op no.2 has not placed on file any Surveyor’s report on file on the basis of which amount of Rs.4,90,071/- was paid by op no.2 to op no.1. The complainant claims to have paid the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the ops no.1 and 3 and has placed on file voucher/ receipts of the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.30,000/- as Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. Since the op no.2 has not placed on file any Surveyor report, therefore, it cannot be said that said Surveyor report is legal and valid and as such deduction made by op no.2 is also wrong and illegal. Since the invoice for repair work was issued by op no.1 for an amount of Rs.5,46,558/- and op no.2 has paid an amount of Rs.4,90,071/- to the op no.1 and as per settlement between op no.1 and complainant regarding repair work, an amount of Rs.45,000/- was paid by complainant as per voucher/ receipts Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, therefore, complainant is entitled to above said amount of Rs.45,000/- from op no.2. However, complainant has failed to prove on record remaining allegations that policy in question also covered EMI benefits because said benefit was optional as per document Ex.C6 and there is nothing on file to prove that complainant also opted for said benefit. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove on record allegations against ops no.1 and 3 regarding misdeed and unauthorized act of ops no.1 and 3 in repair work of truck in question through any cogent and convincing evidence i.e. mechanical report. In these circumstances, op no.2 insurance company is liable to reimburse the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to reimburse/ pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 16.01.2020 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op no.2 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. However, complaint qua ops no.1 and 3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President,
Dated: 29.08.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
