Punjab

Sangrur

CC/238/2018

Charanjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Park Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajan Kapil

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 238

Instituted on:    15.05.2018

                                                                        Decided on:      15.03.2019

 

Charanjeet Singh son of Pritam Singh R/O Street No.3, H.NO. C-39, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     Park Hyundai NH-71, Jind Road, Near IOC Depot,  Village Kamomajra Kalan (Sangrur) Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Chintamani Avenue 4^th Floor, Next to Virmani Industrial Estate, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400 063 through its Manager.

             ….Opposite parties

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Rajan Kapil, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1               :      Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.      

 

FOR OP NO.2                      :      Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

ORDER:   

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Charanjeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is owner of one car bearing registration number PB-13-AD-0008 which was got insured from OP number 2 through OP number 1 under policy number 9914972311015976 for the period from 14.4.2017 to 13.4.2018 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.15751/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the car in question met with an accident on 1.4.2018 and some parts i.e. front bumper penal under cover, LHS under cover, RSN under cover, front door, rear door and some other parts of the car damaged and as per the estimate the car suffered loss to the tune of Rs.33,250/-.  The complainant parked the car with the OP number 1 for repairing purpose, but the car in question was returned to the complainant on 6.4.2018 without repairs.  On enquiry, no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant by the Ops.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,250/- along with interest @ 12% per annum till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.  

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the accidental car was brought to the OP number 1  and accordingly the bill/invoice was generated from the amount of Rs.18,725/- including Rs.9462.90 as cost of spare parts and Rs.5620/- being the cost of labour charges and other taxes.  It is stated further that it is the OP number 2 who has to settle the claim of the complainant and nothing has to be done on the part of OP number 1.

 

3.         In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, that after receipt of the intimation, the OP deputed surveyor, who after inspection made his report to the tune of Rs.17,450/-, that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague an vexatious in nature. On merits,  it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the Ops for the period from 14.4.2017 to 13.4.2018. It is denied that the car suffered loss to the tune of Rs.33,250/-, rather the car was repaired and an amount of Rs.18,725/- was raised vide 6.4.2018 and the OP made the claim amount of Rs.17450/- to OP number 1. However, the other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/8 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  No written arguments have been filed by the complainant.

 

6.             It is admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the Park Hyundai Car bearing registration number PB-13-AD-0008 and was insured by the Opposite party number 2 and the period of the insurance was 14.04.17 to 13.04.18 and policy number is 991497231015976. The complainant paid premium of Rs.15751/-. On 01.04.2018 the car met with an accident and the opposite party number 1 deputed the surveyor who checked the said car and gave an estimate number 3136 of Rs.33250/- dated 03-04-2018. The complainant got repaired the car from opposite party no.1 and took the possession of the car and furnished “Vehicle repair satisfaction voucher ” duly signed to the Opposite party number 1 acknowledging that his car has been repaired to his satisfaction and he admitted that the payment of Rs.17450/- on account of such repairs by the Reliance General Insurance Limited to the above garage is full discharge of his claim upon the said company under policy in respect of the damage cost to the above mentioned vehicle in an accident.

 

7.             Further, the complainant in his complaint demanded that the amount of the estimate framed by the surveyor for Rs.33,250/- should be given to him. But the complainant has not produced on record the copy of the estimate framed by the surveyor, but have found that survey report with complete details with the insurance liability amount of Rs.17450/- and was paid by OP number 2. As discussed above, as the complainant received his damaged vehicle duly repaired by the Opposite party number 1, expenses paid by the opposite party number 2 and providing duly signed vehicle repaired satisfaction voucher to the Ops. The complainant has not denied that estimated cost of the repairs of vehicle. As such, we find no merit in the complaint is dismissed accordingly. A copy of the above order be supplied to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the records.

 

   Pronounced.

 

                March 15, 2019.

                                                       

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                  Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                          Member