STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                     First Appeal No  :   636 & 950 of 2017

Date of Institution:  24.05.2017 & 09.08.2017

                                     Date of Decision:   11.01.2018

Appeal No.636 of 2017

Ramesh Kumar Sahu aged 36 years, son of Sh. Mahabir Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Chuli Kalan, Tehsil and District Hisar.

IInd Address: Ramesh Kumar, Behind Sub Jail, GIDC, Civil Char Rasta, Khatodra, Surat, Gujrat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 5^th Floor, Metropolis, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Manager.

2.      Renault Hisar, Satrod Khas, Bye Pass, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opposite Bhanu Wine Factory, Hisar through its Works Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

Appeal No.950 of 2017

Renault Hisar, Satrod Khas, Bye Pass, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opposite Bhanu Wine Factory, Hisar through its Works Manager.

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Ramesh Kumar Sahu aged 36 years, son of Sh. Mahabir Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Chuli Kalan, Tehsil and District Hisar.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 5^th Floor, Metropolis, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

Argued by:          Shri Amit Singla, Advocate for Shyam Sunder-Complainant

                   Shri Kunal Garg, Advocate for Renault India-opposite party No.2

                   Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.636 of 2017 filed by Ramesh Kumar Sahu-complainant and 950 of 2017 filed by Renault India-opposite party No.2 because they have arisen out of common order dated April 25^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.234 of 2016. 

2.      The complainant got his car insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for the period October 13^th, 2015 to October 12^th, 2016. The policy was zero depreciation.  The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.6,94,400/-.  The car met with an accident on May 09^th, 2016.  Police and the Insurance Company were informed. The complainant took his car to Renault Hisar-opposite party No.2.   The car was beyond repair.  The opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- whereas he did not.  The Insurance Company did not settle the claim of complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite party No.1-Insurance Company, in its, written version pleaded that the Insurance Company had already paid the amount to the complainant as per report submitted by its surveyor. The complainant accepted the amount in full and final settlement.  The remaining contents of the complaint were denied and prayed for its dismissal.

4.      The opposite party No.2-Renault Hisar, in its, written version denied the averments of the complaint.  It was pleaded that before preparing the estimate, all the terms and conditions of the estimate charges were read over to him.  The estimate charges were Rs.10,000/- plus parking charges was Rs.500/- per day, total amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- and assured that he would pay the remaining amount of parking charges after a few days.   

5.      The District Forum vide order dated April 25^th, 2017 partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, September 06^th, 2016 till realization; Rs.7000/- harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the Insurance Company paid Rs.6,94,400/- to the complainant in installments. So, the Insurance Company should have been directed to pay compensation etc to the complainant.

7.      Learned counsel for Renault Hisar has urged that the appellant- Renault Hisar only challenges the interest of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.10,000/-; Rs.7000/- harassment and Rs.1000/- litigation expenses and is ready to pay Rs.10,000/-, that is, estimation charges to the complainant. 

8.      It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company paid the entire claim amount to the complainant.  No evidence has been led by the complainant to prove that the Insurance Company paid the amount to the complainant in installments rather the amount has been accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement. This being so, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Thus the appeal No.636 of 2017 filed by the complainant is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.  

9.      Learned counsel for Renault Hisar has candidly stated that Renault Hisar is ready to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  The District Forum also directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs.10,000/- besides Rs.7000/- and Rs.1000/- towards harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.  Taking into account the amount involved, that is, Rs.10,000/-, awarding of Rs.7000/- and Rs.1000/- towards harassment and litigation expenses was not justified particularly when the interest at the rate of 9% per annum has also been directed to be paid to the complainant.  In this view of the matter, the impugned order is modified to the effect that Renault Hisar-opposite party No.2 shall pay Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, September 06^th, 2016 till realization to the complainant. With this modification in the impugned order, the appeal No.950 of 2017 stands disposed of.  

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.9500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.950 of 2017 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

U.K