Haryana

StateCommission

A/386/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SEHDEV - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

17 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      386 of 2016

Date of Institution:      04.05.2016

Date of Decision :       17.10.2016

 

The Managing Director, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Metro Pillar No.81, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Sehdev s/o Sh. Rameshwar, Resident of Village and Post Office Khetawas, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent

2.      The Managing Director, Lochab Motor Company Private Limited, authorised dealer for Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Ist Floor, Rohtak Tower, Delhi Bye-Pass, Rohtak, Haryana.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

         This appeal has been preferred by the Managing Director, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated February 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Sehdev-complainant/respondent No.1, seeking compensation with respect to his insured vehicle, was accepted. For facilitation the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“….But we are of the considered view that as the counsel for the respondent No.1 has been failed to place on record any survey report, the whole amount of bill was to be paid by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 outside the forum. It has also been observed that the complainant has already paid a total sum of Rs.71,984/- to the respondent No.2, hence, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the same from the respondent No.1 as was the sole responsibility of the respondent No.1 to pay this amount. However, it is made clear that the respondent No.1 would be at liberty to recover the amount already paid i.e. a sum of Rs.49,069/- from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, we direct the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.71,984/- to the complainant on account of repair of his vehicle along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 25.12.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”    

2.                Vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63B-3850 (Mahindra Maximo) owned by the respondent-complainant was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1/appellant vide Insurance Cover Note Exhibit P-5. It was cashless policy. It met with an accident on October 2^nd, 2010 and damaged.  The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss at Rs.49,398/- vide report Annexure A-2. However, the complainant alleged to have spent Rs.71,984/- on the repair of vehicle vide bill Exhibit P-4. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company paid Rs.49,398/- to Lohchab Motor Company Private Limited (the authorised dealer of the vehicle) from where the vehicle was got repaired. The Insurance Company did not pay the actual claimed amount of Rs.71,984/- which the complainant has spent on the repair of the vehicle. 

3.                The Opposite Party/Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order. Hence appeal.

5.                Indisputably, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was damaged in the accident. It is also not disputed that the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the authorised dealer vide bill Exhibit P-4 for Rs.71,984/-. It has also come on the record that the amount of Rs.49,069/- was paid by the Insurance Company to the opposite party No.2, that is, the authorised dealer from where the vehicle was got repaired though during pendency of complaint. Thus, the District Forum fell in error in directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.71,984/- to the complainant because the amount of Rs.49,398/- was already paid by the Insurance Company to the opposite party No.2 directly. So, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.22,915/-, that is, the difference of the amount of Rs.71,984/- spent by the complainant on the repair of vehicle and the amount of Rs.49,398/- already paid by the Insurance Company to the opposite party No.2 and rest of the order shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly.  It is made clear that if the complainant has paid beyond the amount of Rs.49,398/- to the repairer of the vehicle, in the eventuality he is entitled to recover the same from the appellant-Insurance Company by resorting the process of law.

6.                The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

7.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 17.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL