Nagaland

StateCommission

FA 1/2012

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri. Bimal Kumar Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Imti Imsong, Ms. Anungla Jamir, Mr. Sashi Longkumer

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29/05/2012, passed by the District Consumer Forum,  Dimapur in CFD Case No. 12/11. By this impugned judgment the Forum has granted compensation of Rs. 7, 29,813/- (Rupees Seven lacs twenty-nine thousand eight hundred thirteen only)  to the complainant on account of damage  of complainants  vehicle in a road accident and general damages.

Heard Shri.Pankaj Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant did not turn up till 11.10 am. Only a junior counsel turned up in the midst of the dictation of the judgment and sought for adjournment. Hence, the adjournment prayer was rejected.

We have gone through the impugned judgment.We have also pursued the pleadings and evidence tendered by both the parties before the District Forum.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had purchased a car (Swift Dzire) for personal use on 08/02/2011 from Progressive Motors, Golaghat, Assam, who are the dealer of Maruti Company. The said vehicle met with an accident at Sonapur, which is a suburb of Guwahati City. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken by the complainant to the dealer’s workshop at Golaghat for repairing. In terms of Clause M (2) of  the tripartite agreement entered between the Insurance Company, Dealer and MarutiUdyog the dealer prepared a ‘Job Estimate’ to the tune of Rs. 4,99,851 with the approval of a Surveyor.

Despite approved job estimate the dealer did not get clearance from the Insurance Company to repair the vehicle. Hence, the respondents lodged the claim to the Insurance Company on 14/04/2011 at Dimapur praying for replacement of the vehicle and settle the claim on the principle of net salvage basis. The complainant also send remainders on 22/07/2011, 23/08/2011 and submitted all the relevant documents.Having not received any response from the Insurance Company a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 9,14,900/-.Out of that the Forum has granted compensation of Rs. 7,29,813/-. This amount includes value of the car ,i.e.Rs. 6,69,813/- and the remaining amount are general damages.

Apparently, there is no dispute regarding the accident and damage of the vehicle. The vehicle was also admittedly duly insured on the date of the accident with the appellant.

It appears from the written statement submitted before the District Forum that the main objection of the Insurance Company was that pursuant to the tripartite agreement the dealer was supposed to repair the vehicle and submit the bills to the Insurance Company and only thereafter the Insurance Company was supposed to make the payment directly to the dealer. In other words, the Insurance Company pleaded that they were not answerable and accountable to the complainant directly. It is also the case of the appellant that if there was any delay in repairing the vehicle the dealer should be held responsible and liable and not the Insurance Company.Basically, the same grounds have  been taken in appeal before the Commission.

Upon hearing the learned counsel and after going through the impugned judgment we find no force on the plea that the complaint petition was defective due to non-joinder of the dealer.     It was in internal arrangement between the Insurance Company and the dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle. The vehicle owner was not a party to the said agreement. On the same ground we hold that the Insurance Company was required to get the vehicle repaired quickly and deliver the same to the owner. However, the Insurance Company behaved indifferently and did not bother to get the vehicle repaired or compensate the complaint for about 10 (ten) months and in our opinion this is completely an act of deficiency in service.

With regard to the amount of compensation we are not interfering with the  principal compensation of Rs, 6,69,813/- since the vehicle appears to be completely damaged from the photographs submitted before the District Forum. The repairing estimate prepared by the dealer also indicates extensive damage of the vehicle. Similarly, we also approve the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant and also Rs. 15,000/- being the cost of litigation.

However, grant of Rs. 20,000/- for towing the vehicle from the place of accident to the workshop is not approved in the absence of any voucher and the grant of Rs. 10,000/-  for the loss of business is also set aside as it would amount to granting of multiple compensation.

In the result the appeal stands dismissed, subject to reduction of the compensation to Rs. 6,99,813/-. The District Forum has also imposed interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complainant. In view of the prevailing bank rate the interest rate is reduced to 8% per annum.

The registry is directed to release the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent after obtaining proper received and this amount will be adjusted by the Insurance Company while computing the total compensation.

The Registry is directed to return the LCR with a copy of this order.