Haryana

Panchkula

CC/166/2017

MUKESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

SONIA SAINI

04 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.        

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	166 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	16.8.2017
Date of Decision	:	4.5.2018

                                                                           

Mukesh Sharma, aged 50 years R/o House No.1106-J, Sector 4, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Co. through its Authorized Signatory 101-201-301, Natraj, Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Maharashtra.

 

2. Berkeley Hyundai through its Authorized Signatory 375, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula.

 

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Sonia Saini, Advocate for complainant. 

                        Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Mr. O.P.Sharma, L.O, for the OP No.2.  

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1.     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Mukesh Sharma, complainant against SBI General Insurance Company and another, the opposite parties.

2.     It is stated in the complaint that complainant is a registered owner of the car bearing registration No.HR-01-W-0059 and the said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.HSB/00102413 and the same was valid from 1.6.2017 to 31.5.2018 (wrongly mentioned 31.5.2017) and this policy was bumper to bumper policy. The said vehicle met with an accident and thereafter, the complainant had taken the same to the workshop of the OP No.2, who had assured the complainant to repair the vehicle within some days, which was handed over after 8 days. The OP No.2 repaired the said vehicle for an amount of Rs.35,419/- vide invoice No.B201706279 dated 24.6.2017 and OP No.2 had also charged an amount of Rs.8500/- as depreciation, which was illegal as insurance of the said vehicle was bumper to bumper. Thereafter, the complainant visited to Sh. Surender Pal Goel, Surveyor and Parminder Singh, Body Shop and requested them that the depreciation of Rs. 8500/- is not as per law, but they also started demanding bribe from the complainant and did not pay any heed. Thereafter, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 4.7.2017 with the request to refund the amount of Rs.8500/-, which was duly served upon OPs, but no response.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.     Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action against the OPs; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum; the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum.  In his written version, the OP No.1 has stated that in the present case loss was assessed by the authorized surveyor as per Section 64-VB of Insurance Act and after taking into consideration, the surveyor assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.27,243/-. Some of the repair which were not related to the accident were also got done by the complainant for which additional amount was to be paid by the complainant himself. These repairs were excluded from the insurance claim. Only the accidental loss was covered under the policy.

4.     In his written version, OP No.2 has stated that complainant in his complaint alleged manufacturing defect, but the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the car in question. At the time of the receiving the accidental vehicle on 17.6.2017, it was clearly informed by the OP No.2 to the complainant that the time consumed for repair of accidental damage of the car of complainant would be between 7 to 12 days as during the said period not only the vehicle is to be repaired, but the formalities regarding taking insurance claim including necessary permissions to do particular job works are also to be taken and the required parts are to be requisitioned. The vehicle of the complainant was examined by surveyor and it was found that some damage to the door was not pertaining to the particular accident for repair of which the complainant had approached OP NO.2, than the complainant informed about the same and estimate of the said repair as Rs. 6000/- which was to be paid by him was also given. Complainant gave the permission for repairing said damage and starting the work under insurance to the officials of OP NO.2 on repair order on 19.6.2017 and complainant even signed the repair order on 19.6.2017, thus complainant could not agitate that vehicle was kept for repair for 8 days or that an amount of Rs. 8500/- was wrongly charged and the said amount was charged on account of depreciation, for which complainant was given estimate and permission by putting his signature. Reply of legal notice dated 4.7.2017 also sent by the OP No.2, but complainant did not receive the same and the postal authorities returned the same to the counsel for the OP No.2 and the depreciation charges had only taken as per the terms and condition of insurance policy. It is denied that the complainant approached Parminder Singh, the Body Shop Manager and that he demanded bribe. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.     The learned counsel for complainant placed on record the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.1 has placed on record the affidavits as Annexure R-1/A and R-1/B along with documents Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/5 and has closed the evidence, the learned counsel for OP No.2 has placed on record the affidavit as Annexure R-2/A along with documents Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/5 and has closed the evidence. 

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considered the written arguments submitted by the OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

7.     The car of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-01-W-0059 was insured with OP No.1 for the period from 1.6.2017 to 31.5.2018 (wrongly mentioned 31.5.2017). The said policy was bumper to bumper. The said vehicle met with an accident and the same was taken to the workshop of OP No.2. The OP No.2 repaired the said vehicle and charged Rs. 35,419/- (Annexure C-5). The main grudge of the complainant is that the OP No.2 has charged an amount of Rs. 8500/- as depreciation, which was illegal as the insurance of the said vehicle was bumper to bumper.

8.     On the other hand, the OPs have submitted that the surveyor appointed by the OP No.1 assessed the loss for an amount of Rs. 27,243/- and the OP No.1 is liable to pay the above said amount under the Insurance Policy. The OP No.2 has submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was examined by the surveyor and it was found that some damage to the door was not pertaining to the particular accident for repair of which the complainant had approached OP No.2 than the complainant was informed about the same and estimate the said repair as Rs. 6,000/- was given to the complainant and which was paid by him and also charged Rs.2500/- on account of depreciation as per policy.

9.     We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is evident that the vehicle was insured by the OP No.1 and on accident, the said vehicle was taken to the OP No.2 for repair. The surveyor appointed by the OP No.1, who assessed the loss of Rs.27,243/-. The OP No.1 has charged Rs. 6000/- for the repair, which was covered under the policy and Rs. 2500/- as depreciation as per policy for which the complainant gave satisfaction note on 24.6.2017 for the payment of Rs. 27,243/- and Rs. 8176/- payable by him on account of depreciation/extra work amount. The complainant also signed the discharge voucher on the same date i.e. 24.6.2017.

10.    Since the discharge voucher was executed voluntarily and the complainant had not alleged the execution of said voucher was under fraud, under influence and misrepresentation etc. In the absence of the pleadings and evidence, the complainant cannot claim that the OPs have charged the amount of Rs. 8500/- as depreciation illegally. The surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the net loss of Rs. 27,243/-. The OPs charged Rs. 8500/- as depreciation, which was not covered under the policy paid to the complainant vide a discharge voucher dated 24.6.2017, which was received by the complainant in full and final settlement of its claim relating to the said accident. However after more than 2 months, the complaint was filed by the complainant claiming Rs. 8500/- on the ground that the said amount was charged by the OPs on account of depreciation illegally. It is a settle law that once the claimant signed the discharge voucher and received the payment as full and final settlement, the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above, the said complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.  A copy of this order be supplied, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

4.5.2018                    JAGMOHAN SINGH                   DHARAM PAL

                                MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             DHARAM PAL

                                             PRESIDENT