Sushil Kumar R/o H. No.845, Sector 4, Panchkula.

                                                          … Appellant/Complainant.

V E R S U S

Reliance General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. SCO No. 145-146 (Top Floor) above VLCC, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

… Respondent/OP

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Adv. for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This is complainant’s appeal against the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.                           The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant took a comprehensive policy against his car No.HR-70-C-5000 from the OP for the period 28.1.2009 to 27.1.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 25.8.2009 and the cost of damaged parts was Rs.3,67,188/- The OP deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. It was pleaded that as per assessment, it was agreed between the Insurance Company as well as the repairer that the damaged parts would be repaired and in case the repaired parts did not work properly, it could be replaced. After a few days the repaired part gave problem, which was informed to the dealer requesting for replacement of the part. An estimate was prepared and accordingly the vehicle was completely repaired and he was asked to deposit Rs.1,58,217/- as depreciation. It was pleaded that the car was purchased on 28.1.2009 and accident took place on 25.8.2009 after about 7 months of its purchase and as per the rules no depreciation could be made if the claim arises within 6 months. After 6 months only 5% depreciation could be made but the OP made depreciation @40%, which was against the rules and regulations of the motor vehicle insurance. Hence this complaint.

3.                           In its written reply the OP submitted that it has not charged any depreciation charges from the complainant. The amount was charged by M/s Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. but the complainant did not implead it as a party.  The car of the complainant hit the road divider while crossing Railway Phatak and got damaged. The vehicle was inspected by the surveyor and found that there was under carriage damage and the gear box housing was damaged, which was allowed to be replaced. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.62,457, which was duly paid to the repairer under cashless facility. It was denied that major part amounting to Rs.3,67,188/- alongwith other parts were damaged. In fact the damage was caused to gear box housing only and the same was allowed to be replaced with new one. It was vehemently denied that it was agreed between the Insurance Company, Surveyor and repairer that if repaired part did not work it would be replaced. As the damaged part was replaced, as such there was no need of such understanding. The complainant took the vehicle after proper testing and fully satisfied and gave satisfaction and discharge voucher in favour of the repairer. After using the car for 6 months and running the same for about 5000 Kms, the complainant, complained about some noise in the transmission assembly and approached the OP. The surveyor of the OP checked the vehicle and found that the noise was due to some scoring marks on the bearing race of the Thrust Bearing, which happened due to bad workmanship or manufacturing fault in the bearing. Thereafter a meeting was held at the dealer’s premises on 2.10.2010 alongwith officials of the OP as well as Joshi Automotives and the surveyor. The fault was found in the transmission assembly, hence the liability, if any, was of Honda Siel Company, the manufacturer of the vehicle or M/s Joshi Autmotives Pvt. Ltd., the repairer. It was thus decided between the manufacturer and dealer to replace the complete assembly to remove the noise. No fault was found in the part which were replaced at the time of accident. Thus the trouble was due to manufacturing defect or poor workmanship and the OP was not liable to pay any compensation. It was decided to consider the loss on substandard basis to help the complainant and the OP agreed to reimburse 60% of the cost of transmission assembly while remaining 40% was to be paid by the dealer/manufacturer of the vehicle. If the dealer charged any amount from the complainant, it was totally illegal and the dealer/repairer was liable to refund the same to him. The OP was not liable to pay any amount for replacement of complete automatic transmission assembly, as the same was a manufacturing defect of poor workmanship on the part of the dealer or manufacturer. Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint, a prayer for the dismissal of the same was made.

4.                           Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

5.                           After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully and have also perused the written arguments.

8.                           It is not disputed that the car owned by the complainant/appellant met with an accident and was repaired. There was damage to gear box housing and the same was replaced. The complainant had used the car for about 6 months. Thereafter the transmission assembly started giving trouble. Ultimately the said transmission assembly was repaired by the dealer for which the OP/respondent paid only a sum of Rs.2,08,997/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,58,217/- had to be paid by the complainant. The case of the OP was that since the damage was due to the bad workmanship of the dealer/manufacturer, the OP was not liable to reimburse the loss to the complainant. Therefore, a meeting was held on 2.10.2010 at the dealer’s premises where the officials from the OP were also present and it was decided that 60% of the cost of transmission assembly shall be paid by the OP and remaining 40% by the dealer/manufacturer of the car. There is no dispute about it that the agreed amount of 60% has already been paid by the OP. it is therefore, not a case where deduction towards depreciation has been made by the OP @40% of the damage part. The remaining amount was to be paid by the dealer/manufacturer of the car for the bad workmanship/manufacturing defect as mentioned in the surveyor report Annexure R-4. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly observed that the said amount could have been claimed by the complainant from the dealer/manufacturer, if payable by them as per warranty but not from the OP. The complainant/appellant however, did not implead the dealer/manufacturer of the car as a party for the reasons best known to him. Since the OP has already paid the amount, which it was liable to pay for the damage to the car and there is no deficiency on its part, the OP is, therefore, not liable to pay the remaining 40% of the amount as claimed by the complainant. The learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and we do not find any infirmity in the said order. There is therefore, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.    

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

30^th January, 2012                                                            sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

                                                                        Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

                                                                        Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

mp