The vehicle bearing Registration No. WB56G-6781 owned by the complainant and covered under an insurance policy valid from 30/11/13 to 29/11/14 issued by O.P. 1 met with an accident on 22.12.13 at 7 p.m. near Berani Dhalia Village under P.S Pindrajora, Dist. Bokharo and the fact of accident which caused damage to the vehicle was reported to aforesaid P.S. vide G.D.ENo. 517 dated 23.12.13 (Vide Annexure 3). Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to Hindusthan Auto Agency, City Center, Bokharo for repairing the same. The O.P. 1 was informed about the accident immediately on the day following the day of accident. The complainant also requested the O.P. 1 for taking steps in the matter of settlement of the payment for repairing the damaged vehicle and had also submitted necessary documents.
The surveyor and loss assessor surveyed the damaged vehicle and requested the O.P.2 to complete the repair work as the O.P. 1 was to settle the assessed of loss after road trial of the repaired vehicle. Despite several correspondences between the surveyor and the repairing agency the vehicle was not repaired and the complainant has been deprived of getting the claim from the insurance company. Pleading deficiency in rendering due service the complainant has come up with this petition of complaint for his redressal.
Having denied all the material allegations and disputing the vehicle registration number, the O.P. 1 through its written version has contended inter alia that the vehicle was damaged but not totally, in the stated accident and this was informed to it only on 24/12/13. The surveyor was appointed to assess the damage who inspected the vehicle and requested the O.P. 2 on 19/4/14 to repair the vehicle and to finalize the assessment of loss within 7 days, in default exparte report would be submitted. He found discrepancy in the matter of price of the body shell. Since the O.P. 2 did not respond to it the surveyor submitted his exparte report dated 20/5/14 by assessing the loss at Rs. 2,39,042.89 ≈ Rs.2,39,040/-. In the mean time one Krishnendu Chell was appointed for re-inspection of the vehicle who did it on 20/5/14 and 24/5/14 in presence of Mr. Sunil Sariwala, the representative of the insured but he could not produce any money receipt of the invoice. However, the O.P. 1 approved Rs. 2,23,600/- as the cost of repair subject to production of cash memo, etc. The matter is pending at this stage and prayer for dismissal of this case has been made accordingly.
The stand of the O.P. 2 is that it was entrusted to repair the stated vehicle for which a bill for repairing charges was submitted. Denying the assessment of repairing charge submitted by the surveyor of O.P.1, the O.P. 2 has contended that the price of the body shell was not Rs. 1,36,188.87/-. It is also contended by it that catolic converter and rare bumper were affected in the accident itself and not during lifting of the vehicle for repair. Expressing its willingness to handover the vehicle on receipt of repairing charges prayer for dismissal of the case has been made.
Having regard to the contention of the parties we find that the vehicle in question being insured, the owner thereof is entitled to get an amount from the insurance company (O.P.1) equivalent to the amount required for repairing the damages sustained by it because of the accident. So the task upon this Forum to plough the materials on record to ascertain such quantum of money to be paid by the insurance company. Together with it has to be ascertained whether O.P. 2 is negligent in delivering the vehicle back to the owner after its prompt repair.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for or to what other relief he is entitled.
-:Decision with reason:-
The vehicle registration number mentioned by the complainant in second line of para 1 of his petition of complaint seems to be mistaken one and the O.P. 1 has rightly mentioned it and the said vehicle bearing Registration Number WB-56G-6781 has admittedly met with an accident on 22/12/13 when the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle was in force. So liability of O.P. No. 1 is a must. Undisputedly the information as to the accident was informed to O.P. 1 within a very short time prior to which the factum of accident was diarised vide G.D.E No. 517 dated 23/12/13 at Pindrajore Police Station, Bokharo.
Admittedly, the damaged vehicle was taken to the workshop of O.P. 2 for its repair which having regard to the damages sustained by the vehicle issued service of estimate dated 28/12/13 for an amount of Rs. 5,47,241.22 (vide annexure 4 to the petition of complaint). Admittedly, a surveyor namely, Alok Chandra was appointed to assess the extent of damage who surveyed the vehicle on 07/01/14 and opined that it was a major loss and had a plan to settle the assessment of loss after road trial of the repaired car to avoid further complication (vide Annex 5 to the Petition of Complaint). By said annexure the O.P. 2 was requested to finalize the assessment but it was not complied with. In the mean time several correspondences between the parties also yield no result. Thereafter another surveyor namely Krisnendu Chell was appointed who re inspected the vehicle on 20/5/14 and 24/5/14 along with Mr. Sunil Sariwala the representative of the complainant and found the vehicle in road worthy condition after conducting a short road trial. We do not find anything on record that during such inspection and re-inspection any complaint or de-satisfaction was raised either by the complainant or O.P. 2 with regard to the needed repair to make the damage vehicle road worthy.
However, we find that soon after the vehicle was given in custody of O.P. 2 an estimate for repair to the tune of Rs. 5,47,241.22/- (vide Annex. 4 to the petition of complaint) was given. That estimate was subsequently modified to Rs. 4,77, 371 (vide annex ‘S’) to the written version of O.P.1. The former surveyor recommended Rs. 2,39,042.89/- (vide annexure ‘I’ series of the written version of O.P.1). On the other hand, the O.P. 1 after inter-departmental communications has finally arrived at Rs. 2,23,600/- as the amount for repairing the vehicle which is based on the final survey report, re-inspection report and all other relevant documents vide annexure O/2. Therefore, we find great differences between the initial estimated amount and subsequent estimated amount done by O.P. 2 and also the net repairing cost assessed and re-assessed by O.P. 1 as above. But the real assessment and computation of the quantum of the repairing cost has to be done and made avoiding almost all probable ambiguity. In order to that we must concentrate to the actual repair works required for the purpose of making the damage vehicle road worthy. In this regard we are to depend upon the documents supplied to us specially the letter of the surveyor which contains identification of the parts which were not actually needed. All those details can be had from annexure H, I/3, J which are to be compared with the details of parts replaced and added which was submitted by O.P.2 on 03//12/14. From the above documents it is found that the surveyor Mr. Alok Kr. Chandra by a letter (vide Annex 8) requested the O.P. 2 to provide satisfactory reason for replacement of some parts (listed below) which were unaffected/intact in accident viz. Rail assy fuel, controller assy, fog lamp, lamp assy side turn, wiper assy W/S, Horn, Shaft assy front drive (RH), arm assy front suspension (RH), Beam rear suspension, box assy, steering, compressor assy, condenser assy. But we do not find any explanation from O.P. 2 as to why those were replaced/repaired. In absence of such explanation we are to hold that this must have been done at the instance of the complainant or by O.P. 2 being persuaded by the complainant. Therefore, the cost of all those parts cannot be bourne by O.P.1. We also find that in the initial estimate the price of the body shell, since replaced, was Rs. 1,36,188.87 but in the final bill a sum of Rs. 1,77,131.82 has been charged. No doubt, there has been a change in the financial year when the initial estimate was furnished and actually the repairing work was done. There is no material before us to hold that the delayed repair was due to some latches on the part of the complainant or O.P.1. Therefore, the reason for such delay must be attributable to O.P.2 which by its conduct allowed some valuable time to pass after which price of the same component has increased for which neither the complainant nor the O.P.1 can be held responsible. So, none of them can be burdened with payment of the difference of sum of money which comes to (1,77,131.82-1,36,188.87)= Rs. 40,942.95. Having regard to above facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any cogent ground to burden the insurance company to pay the aforesaid amount of (Rs.90,150.005+Rs.40,942.95) Rs.1,31,092.955. Simultaneously with it we are also to note that on 03/12/14 the O.P.2 submitted a copy of job card retail cash memo detailing out the parts replaced/repaired together with rate, taxable amount and percentage of tax thereof, copy of which was supplied to the complainant as well as O.P.1. But none of them disputed that documents which reflects the net bill amount at Rs. 4,77,371/-. Therefore, we arrive at a position when the amount payable by the insurance company can be computed on the very document furnished by it coupled with other documents filed by rest of the parties and such amounts come to Rs. 4,77,371-Rs.1,31,092.955) = Rs. 3,46,278.045≈ Rs.3,46,278/-
It has been disclosed from the materials on record that the vehicle has since been repaired and has assumed road worthy value but admittedly it has not been handed over to its owner for which the owner must have been undergoing mental agony and is being deprived of enjoying the vehicle. May be pendency of settlement of the claim by the insurance company and making due payment to O.P.2 are the reasons for which the vehicle has not been handed over to its owner. But the acts and omission on the part of both the O.Ps the complainant has been suffering since a long time which makes him entitled to compensation to be paid by both the O.Ps for their crystal clear deficiency in rendering due service to the complainant who is a consumer to each of them.
Having regard to entire facts and circumstances of this case which has been scrutinized and appreciated in respect of the documents and other materials on record we are of the common opinion that the O.P. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,46,278./- (avoiding fraction) to the complainant or to the O.P. 2 with intimation to the complainant as the repairing charges of the vehicle.
The balance of the repairing cost if any, is to bourne by the complainant himself. The O.P.2 is liable to hand over the vehicle forthwith on receipt of his dues.
In the result the petition of complaint succeeds to the extent mentioned above. Hence,
ORDERED
That the petition of complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only to be paid by the two O.Ps in equal share within one month from the date of this order.
The O.P.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,46,278/- (Rs. three lakhs forty six thousand two hundred seventy eight) only by an A/c payee Cheque either directly to the complainant or to the O.P. 2 with intimation to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order.
O.P.2 is directed to handover the vehicle in a road-worthy condition to the complainant within a period of 7 days from the date he receives the entire repairing cost to the tune of Rs. 4,77,371/-.
The O.P. 1 and O.P2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousands) only to the complainant in equal share.
The above portion of the order must be complied with by each of the O.Ps within the time specified above failing which each of them shall be liable to pay a punitive damage @ 100/- per day till compliance. If any such amount becomes payable and realized the same would be deposited Consumer Legal Aid account bearing No. 34735771817 of SBI, Purulia Branch.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.
