Haryana

StateCommission

A/1193/2018

VISHAL DHAGAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PEARL HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SHARMA

02 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1193 of 2018

                   Date of Institution:15.10.2018

Date of Decision:02.09.2024

 

Mr.VishalDhagat S/o Dr.S.B.Dhagat R/o DevinderVihar Flat No.J-6057, Sector-56, Gurugram-122011.

 

…Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.      Pearl Honda having registered office at 554, Peace City, IInd Sector-37,Gurgaon-122001.

 

2.      HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered and Corporate office at 1^st Floor 165-166, Backby redemption H.T. Parekh Marg Churchgate Mumbai-400020.

 

Also at:

 

7 Apsara 1^st Floor SV Road, Santacruz Mumbai 400054.

 

Branch office at

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Office No.208 2^nd Floor, Seva Corporate Suits, Sector-14, Gurgaon 122001.

 

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Shri  Rohan Moudgill proxy counsel for Shri Sandeep Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

                   Respondent No.1 already ex parte.

                   ShriNitesh Singhi, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

Complainant-Appellant-Vishal Dhagat, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated  06.08.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad whereby complaint filed by complainant was allowed with direction to the OP No.1 to  pay  a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.  Further ordered that insurance company shall process the claim within 30 days after the receipt of required documents from the complainant and also  from repair workshop of OP No.1, the OP No.2 to reimburse the compensation in terms of the policy as per rules on the basis of surveyor report and the balance amount shall be payable by the complainant.

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint werethat  complainant got his car bearing registration No.HR-51-W-4337 insured from the Opposite Party (OP No.2) w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015.  On 28.03.2015, the vehicle broke down/met with an accident.  The vehicle was sent to Pearl Honda Workshop on 29.03.2015 for repair.  Surveyor was appointed, who after examining the above said vehicle assured that insurance company would pay only 50% of the  total repair cost and charges.  OP No.1 issued the estimate of Rs.1,50,000/- for the complete repair and replacement of parts in the said vehicle.  Approximately 50% was to be paid by insurance company i.e. OP No.2. On the assurance and commitment by OP No.1,  vehiclewas to be handed over after the said repairs to the complainant in the month of April 2015.    OP No.1 failed to deliver the above said vehicle on the assured time as some parts required to be replaced were not available with it.  OP No.1 further assured that requisite parts would be available soon in the workshop/repair centre and the vehicle would be delivered very soon after its repair.   Despite several requests, the vehicle was not repaired.  OP No.1 contacted him to take delivery of the said vehicle and also wrote an email to take delivery of the said vehicle after 15 months i.e. in July 2016.  OP also raised an invoice of Rs.56,856/- in July, 2016 and prior to that and above the  estimation issued by the OP No.1 raised another invoice dated 30.04.2015 to the tune of Rs.2,21,912/- amounting to a total of Rs.2,78,768/-, which was above the estimate provided by OP No.1.  OP No.1 has deliberately defrauded the complainant. He requested the OP No.1 to show the replaced parts, but OP No.1 was neither showing the same nor agreeing to return the same with malafide intention.  Faced with this situation, the complainant sent legal notice dated 27.10.2016 to OP No.2 with a request to make the payment to OP No.1. The complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.6,50,000/- from OP No.1 and 2 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3.      Notice being issued, OP No.1 and 2 filed separate written statement.     OP No.1 submitted preliminary objections about cause of action, non-joinder of necessary party,  written statement was barred by time etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On merits, OP No.1 submitted that no estimate of Rs.1,50,000/-  for the complete repair and the replacement of parts was given by the answering OPs.  An estimate of around Rs.2.5 lakh was to be incurred on the repair and replacement of the parts. It was made clear to the complainant that said amount was tentative and not final.  After being satisfied, the complainant gave his consent and only then the repair work got started.  It was denied that any time  frame for the repair work was given by the answering OP to the complainant. The entire work depended upon the availability of the parts and if some of the parts were not available, he had to wait for the same. The said fact had been duly acknowledged by the complainant. Answering OP was only a dealer of the Honda Company and was not a manufacturer. The non availability of any part was not the liability or an issue towards the answering OP. The said delay was because of non-availability of the part.  It was further submitted that estimate of Rs.2.5 lakhs was already given to the complainant and only after his assurance to the same, the work got started by the answering OP.      It was submitted that all the broken/old parts, which were replaced, handed over to the complainant by the answering OP.   It was also submitted that after getting his car repaired upto the complete satisfaction of the complainant, the intention of the complainant became dishonest and he wrote a mail dated 19.10.2016 to the insurance company and told them not to release any payment to Pearl Honda without his approval. The said mail  sent by the complainant clearly reflected the malafide intentions of the complainant. The said mail clearly reflected the fact the insurance  company was ready to release the payment to the answering OP but because of malafide intentions and greed  the complainant stopped the payment, which was to be released to the answering OP.  All the broken parts were handed over to the complainant.   It was also submitted  that  no legal notice has been served upon the answering OP.  There was no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice  on the part of the answering OP  and present complaint be dismissed with costs.

5.      OP No.2 filed separate written statement.  It was submitted that  answering OP vide letter dated 28.10.2016, 03.11.2016, 17.11.2016 & 24.11.2016 have been requesting the complainant for the submission of cash receipt of the repairer or insured’s consent for payment to the dealers. However the complainant neither provided the cash receipt nor any consent so that payment could have been done to the repairer under cashless mode of payment.  It was admitted that vehicle bearing regd. No.HR-51-W-4337 was insured with the answering OP from the period 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015.    It was submitted that on 28.03.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident.  Surveyor was appointed, who conducted the survey. However, the complainant did not cooperate with the answering OP and despite repeated letters and reminders has not supplied the required information.  It was specifically denied that insurance company will pay only 50% of the total repair cost and charges.   The complainant did not supply the required documents to the answering OP, which were required for process of the claim of the complainant and without supplying the necessary documents it was not possible for the answering OP to process the claim of the complainant. The complainant failed to supply the required information, hence the claim of the complainant was closed by the answering OP.  There was no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP  and present complaint be dismissed with costs.

6.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, (In short “District Consumer Commission”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 06.08.2018 and relief mentioned in para No.1 of the order.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, Complainant-Appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

8.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.CW1/A to CW1/J and Ex. R-1 to R-5 werethoroughly perused andexamined.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued  that learned District Consumer Commission did notappreciate the evidence led by the complainant-appellant and did not grant adequate compensation as per the law. The complainant was entitled for compensation approximately Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- due to mental agony and harassment and negligence of OP No.1.

10.    On the contrary, learned counsel for OP No.2-respondent No.2 vehemently argued that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident. Further argued that the complainant did not cooperate with the respondents and despite repeated letters and reminders did not supply the required information and hence the claim of the complainant was closed by the respondent No.2.     Learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 

11.    It is not disputed that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, accident had taken place.   Photocopy of estimate Ex.CW1/B (four pages) of the repair of the vehicle made by Pearl Honda, which clearly stated that complainant did not sign the approved estimate. Invoice dated 30.04.2015 Ex.CW1/C and dated 14.07.2016 Ex.CW1/D revealed that total cost of the repair was Rs.2,21,912/- and Rs.56856/- respectively.  Email Ex.CW1/E also revealed that the vehicle was ready for delivery since 30.04.2015.  Email Ex.CW1/F clearly indicated that complainant requested the insurance company to reopen the claim.  As per Ex.R-2 dated 28.10.2016, Ex.R-3 dated 03.11.2016 and Ex.R-4 dated 17.11.2016, the insurance company requested the complainant to deposit the documents within seven days, but, the complainant did not submit the required documents to the insurance company and hence, the insurance company closed the claim  (Ex.R-5) of the complainant  vide letter dated 24.11.2016. The complainant failed to explain as to why the vehicle was taken to OP No.1 on 05.05.2015.  It is relevant to inform here that there was no surveyor report produced by the complainant.   Due to non-delivery of the vehicle to the complainant, he was adequately compensated by the learned District Consumer Commission. No ground for enhancement of compensation is made out.  Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

12.  

13.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

2^ndSeptember, 2024           S.P.Sood                                                      T.P. S. Mann

                                                Judicial Member                                         President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)