BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2013.
Date of Institution : 17.4.2013
Date of Decision : 29.09.2016
- Hemant Kumar Advocate
- Sarwan Kumar sons of Shri Om Parkash Ganeriwala, residents of 5/268, Gali Khan Sahab Wali, Rori Bazar, Sirsa- 125055.
….Complainants.
Versus.
The Manager, M/s Raja M.Hyundai, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
..…Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainants is that complainants purchased a new Car Verna CRDi bearing chassis No.014004, engine No.960938 for a total sum of Rs.10,14,850/- from opposite party as per quotation issued by the opposite party to the State Bank of India, branch at Devi Lal Vidya Peeth, Sirsa and the said amount was withdrawn by op from the loan account of the complainants. The opposite party allured the complainant that he himself shall arrange a VIP number and registration documents and also shall manage insurance policy for which he charged lump sum amount from the complainants. Thereafter, without getting the consent of the complainants, the opposite party procured insurance policy from National Insurance Company at Bathinda, whereas the Divisional Office of the said company is also at Sirsa. Unfortunately on 27.10.2011, the said car met with an accident near Hansi and a massive loss to the occupants as well as to the vehicle was caused whereupon without any delay, the matter was reported to the op and the bank authorities. Then the op instructed the complainants to bring the car at showroom and op demanded a sum of Rs.43,000/- from the complainants which was paid to the op vide receipt No.6727 but the op did not mention the reason on the receipt for receiving Rs.43,000/-. The op also advised to keep the accidental car at their residence. On 14.11.2011, Sh. GPS Bagga contacted the complainants and introduced himself as a Surveyor and thereafter he prepared a report of the said accidental car and charged Rs.14,160/- as fee. Then on their agitation to the op, the op assured the complainant Hemant Kumar to refund the amount of Rs.43,000/- received by him but despite many visits, op did not make any refund of the said amount. The Insurance Company in the course of settling the claim, credited Rs.7,06,000/- in the loan account of the complainants and the op had also given the scrap of the accidental car to the complainants and assessed its value as Rs.2,70,000/- and as such the total claim amount comes to Rs.9,76,000/- which includes the Surveyor fee of Rs.14,160/-. As such, a less claim amount was settled whereas the Insurance Authorities informed that the claim has been settled as 100% and then it was revealed that car was insured for less amount of Rs.50,000/- upon which a complaint was preferred through Internet to the company concerned, but the op has replied the same at its own and the reply is not satisfactory and is not binding upon their rights. The complainants as well as their father visited the office of Insurance Company at Bathinda several times where Mr. Pawan Chaudhary, Senior Divisional Manager of the company informed the complainants that dealer at Sirsa had submitted the bill of short amount but they have settled the 100% claim as per the amounts mentioned in the policy and also provided the Surveyor’s fee. The opposite party has caused unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The op submitted short billing of Rs.50,000/- and due to this the complainant has suffered loss and harassment. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay the above said amount of Rs.50,000/- besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, Rs.25000/- being spent by complainants as transportation charges for visiting Bathinda and Rs.43,000/- received by the opposite party and also to pay interest.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement denying all the averments of the complaint in toto. It has been submitted that complainants brought the aforesaid car at the workshop of the op in accidental condition and requested for preparing its estimate of repair. As per norms, when any vehicle is brought in accidental condition, the op is required to prepare estimate for its repair etc. and 5% of the estimated cost of such repairs etc. is charged by the op as expenses for preparing the estimate. The work of making estimate of accidental vehicle takes a lot of time, hard labour and analysis of various parts damaged in the accident and such process takes 4 to 5 days even as the accidental vehicle is to be checked-up minutely by opening various parts of such vehicle. So, the op charged Rs.43,000/- as cost/ expenses of preparing the estimate of the vehicle in a legal and lawful manner. The op has no concern or connection with the survey charges charged by the surveyor. The matter of insurance of the vehicle is between the complainants and the insurance company. However, it is submitted that as per norms of the insurance company, 5% of the value of the vehicle is deducted by the Insurance Company as depreciation of the vehicle with the age of 6 months. So, no vehicle is insured by any insurance company with full value of the vehicle even if the same is newly purchased. The op never gave any alleged assurance to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and various documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7. Whereas the op has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R4.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The complainants have alleged to have purchased the Car in question from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.10,14,850/- but the insured declared value of the vehicle in the insurance cover note Ex.C3 is mentioned as Rs.9,63,851/- for which an amount of Rs.25,060/- has been charged as premium by the National Insurance Company Ltd. The complainants ought to have raised the said objection at the time of receiving the insurance documents that why the insured value of the vehicle has been declared as Rs.9,63,851/- when they have spent an amount of Rs.10,14,850/- for purchase of the vehicle in question. Moreover, as per schedule of depreciation for fixing IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the vehicle contained in Ex.R2, 5% of the value of the vehicle is deducted for the vehicle not exceeding the age of six months and 15% is deducted for the vehicle exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year and percentage of depreciation becomes more and more with the age of the vehicle. The Insurance company by deducting 5% of the value of the vehicle in question insured the vehicle for Rs.9,63,851/- as per their terms and conditions and it cannot be said that opposite party has withheld any amount of the complainant. Admittedly, the Insurance company has already credited an amount of Rs.7,06,000/- in the loan account of the complainants and scrap value has been assessed as Rs.2,70,000/- and thus, the complainant has received 100% claim from the insurance company as per the insurance policy including fee of Surveyor. The opposite party has justified the receipt of Rs.43,000/- as charged from the complainant for preparing estimate for repair and has duly issued receipt in this regard to the complainant. So, no case for any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party is made out.
6. Thus, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 29.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
