DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 300 of 14
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 07.11.2014
DATE OF ORDER: -26.10.2016
Amit son of Shri Mohinder Singh, resident of Charkhi, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Raghu Hundai Bhiwani (through its proprietor Dr. Ishwar Dass Gupta), Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
- Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No. 6, 1st Floor, Metro Pillar No. 81, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri M.S. Sangwan, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Shri Satender Ghangas, Proxy Counsel for
Shri A. Sardana,Advocate for OP no. 2.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of a car bearing registration No. HR-19G-6161, Chassis No. MALBB51RLCM454929, Engine No. D4FCCU161584. It is alleged that on 26.04.2014, the brother of complainant was coming to his home from Rohtak and in the way a Neel Cow was came at once and due to this the vehicle in question struck with Neel Cow and it was damaged only from front side of vehicle in question. It is alleged that after the accident, the complainant had informed to the Ops and after inspecting the vehicle in question the Ops told to the complainant that there is loss of approximately 2/2.50 lacs and as the vehicle in question is insured with our insurance company therefore he would pay the total damaged amount in respect of vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant left the vehicle in the workshop of respondent and respondent had repaired the vehicle in question just about 4/5 days ago and they informed about him. After this, Ops no. 1 & 2 with the collusion of each other wrongly and illegally prepared a bill of Rs. 5,86,000/- in respect of repairing charges of vehicle in question and told to him to deposit the amount of bill & when the complainant told to OP no. 1 to claim the bill of repairing from OP no. 2 but they totally denied to claim the same from OP no. 2. It is alleged that OP no. 1 also refused to deliver the vehicle in question to the complainant if he would not deposit the amount of repairing. It is alleged that the complainant many times requested to the OP no. 2 to pay the whole amount of repairing of vehicle in question and also made request to the OP no. 1 to claim the same from OP no. 2 but Ops clearly refused to accept his request. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that after completion of repair of vehicle, the complainant was intimated many times to get the delivery of the vehicle after depositing the entire amount and get the claim furnish with insurance company. It is submitted that the complainant failed to make the payment of Rs. 5,32,471/- and did not take the delivery of vehicle from the workshop of OP no. 1. It is submitted that the answering respondent did not receive any intimation regarding the accident and answering respondent prepared the estimate of amount to be carried out on the repairs of the vehicle and intimated the complainant about the estimate value. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that as per the version of the complainant himself only the front portion of the vehicle was damaged and the estimated cost of repair was 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- and the company has already passed claim for Rs. 2,96,626/- as assessed by its surveyor. It is submitted that a false bill was prepared by the complainant himself in collusion with the OP no. 1 to extort money from the answering respondent. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered into evidence Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7. On the other side, counsel for OP no. 2 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car in question was damaged in road accident and it was taken by the complainant to OP no. 1 for necessary repairs. The OP no. 2/insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 2,96,626/-, while the OP no. 1 has claimed Rs. 5,86,000/- for the repairs. The complainant has obtained the cashless policy, hence the OP no. 2 is liable to pay the entire amount of repairs to OP no. 1. The OP no. 1 has not delivered the car to the complainant because the OP no. 2 has not paid the entire amount of repairs to OP no. 1.
8. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the bill for repairs has come to the tune of Rs. 5,32,471/- and besides it the complainant also liable to pay the charges for injector which is Rs. 20,062/-. As the insurance policy informed the OP no. 1 that it will pay Rs. 2,97,000/- to the OP no. 1 and the remaining amount will be paid by the complainant. The complainant has failed to pay the total amount of the repairs. Hence he has not taken the delivery of the car. The complainant is also liable to pay Rs. 350/- per day as parking charges.
9. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of its reply. He submitted that after the receipt of information about the accident the surveyor and loss accessor in its final survey report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 296626/- vide surveyor report Annexure R-3. The complainant also signed the discharge voucher for Rs. 2,96,626/- as full and final settlement of his claim, but later on the complainant refused to receive the aforesaid claim amount. The complainant is liable to pay the depreciation for the motor parts as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Counsel for the OP no. 2 referred the following judgments:-
I M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Nissan Electronics Ltd. 2014 (3) CLT 320 (NC).
II Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Beena Raghav III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC).
III NIC Vs. Combined Medical Institute Private Ltd. II (2015) CPJ 503 (NC).
10. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has produced the certificate of insurance Annexure P-2 but no term and condition of the policy is annexed to this document. The complainant has also produced the Registration Certificate of vehicle as Annexure P-1 and Driving License Annexure P-3 and photo of the accidental car Annexure P-4. No other document has been produced by the complainant. The OP no. 2 has produced motor final survey report but has not produced the spot survey report to explain the extent of damage to the vehicle. The OP no. 1 has produced the copy of his bill dated 18.07.2014 alongwith annexures.
11. The vehicle in question has been repaired by the authorized dealer of the company. The OP no. 2 is directed to re-access the loss of the vehicle as per the bill of the OP no. 1 and the said amount of loss be paid by the OP no. 2 to OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 is directed to deliver the said vehicle in question in running condition to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 26.10.2016
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
