BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.532 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 05.11.2019

      Date of Decision: 22.12.2020

Vikram Verma s/o Sh. Vipan Kumar Verma resident of Ward No.6, Mangat Marg, Shahkot, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Sterling Mobikes Private Limited, Village Khakat, NH-1, G. T.         Road, Near Old Airport Road, Ludhiana.

2.       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head office Oriental     House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

3.       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 109-110-111,      Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017.

4.       Capital Small Finance Bank, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. K. K. Rajput, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Sh. Subodh Kumar, Adv. Counsel for OP No.4.

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OP No.1 is the company for selling and repair of motorbikes and running showroom and workshop, the OP No.2 is the head office of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and the OP No.3 is the Regional Office of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the OP No.4 is the banker of OPs No.2 and 3. That the complainant has purchased one Harley Davidson from the OP No.1, vide Invoice No.HD/0017/18-19 on 31.05.2018 for an amount of Rs.18,45,271 and he registered the said vehicle vide RC bearing No.PB08-AD-8282 and insured the said vehicle from the OP No.3 which is the Regional Office of the OP No.2 under the “Dep Cap”category for the period from 22.06.2018 to 21.06.2019. The complainant insured his vehicle for full insurance claim under the “Dep Cap” category and had deposited the requisite insurance premium. That on 16.08.2019, the complainant brought his said vehicle for its repair at the workshop of the OP No.1 as his said vehicle got accident and the OP No.1 delivered back the said vehicle to the complainant after the repair of his said vehicle on 07.01.2019. That the complainant has paid repair bill amount for Rs.8,45,650/- as Rs.7,60,000/- through RTGS from his banker Capital Small Finance Bank Ltd to the OP No.1 on 07.01.2019 vide Receipt No.1941 dated 07.01.2019 and Rs.88,650/- in cash on 07.01.2019 vide Receipt No.1945 dated 07.01.2019. Copy of the receipts are attached with the file. That the complainant has valid driving license and he is entitled for full insurance amount of the said repair bill, but till date no payment has been given to the complainant by the OP No.2 and OP No.3 as he got repaired his said vehicle from the OP No.1 against valid and existing “Dep Cap” insurance. That the complainant is entitled to receive the entire amount of Rs.8,48,650/- which is paid to the OP No.1. That the complainant served a legal notice to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.8,48,650/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% which he paid to the OPs and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- due to malpractice, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 miserably failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.2 and 3 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. That immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle bearing registration No.PB08-DA-8282 in the accident dated 16.08.2018 insured with the answering OP through its Branch Office, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala, M/s Suresh Vashisht & Co. Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors were appointed as surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle in question. The surveyor inspected the vehicle, consulted the same with the complainant, submitted their survey report dated 28.01.2019 with the answering OP, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.6,75,000. Accordingly, claim of the complainant was settled and amount of Rs.6,75,000/- has been credited to the account of the complainant through NEFT on 29.03.2019. The motor claim form alongwith discharge voucher of Rs.6,75,000/- is Ex.OP2-3/1, survey report is Ex.OP2-3/2, Discharge Vourcher cum Satisfaction Note is Ex.OP2-3/3 and Payment Voucher is Ex.OP2-3/4. It is further alleged that it is not out of place to mention here that in the bill, the labour of Rs.25,440/- is excess than the estimated labour as claimed by the repairer in the estimate submitted with the company. It is further alleged that there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint in view of the fact that due and payable amount of Rs.6,75,000/- qua the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant, has already been paid by the answering OPs. The complainant has also executed discharge voucher to this effect in favour of the answering OPs. The present complaint being without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed with special and exemplary costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased one Harley Davidson from OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.4 filed its separate reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against OP. This is nothing but misuse of the process of the Court. It is further alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. On merits, it is admitted that an amount of Rs.7.60 lac was remitted to OP No.1, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, counsel for the parties produced on the file their respective documents.

5.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant, very minutely.

6.                In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that the complainant had purchased one Harley Davindson from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.18,45,271/-, vide Invoice Ex.C-2, Copy of Registration Certificate is Ex.C-3, the same is insured with OP No.3. On 16.08.2018, the complainant brought his vehicle for its repair as the vehicle accidently damaged and the said vehicle delivered back to the complainant after repair. The complainant has paid repair bill amount for Rs.8,45,650/- as Rs.7,60,000/- through RTGS from his banker Capital Small Finance Bank Ltd to the OP No.1 on 07.01.2019 vide Receipt No.1941 dated 07.01.2019 and Rs.88,650/- in cash on 07.01.2019 vide Receipt No.1945 dated 07.01.2019. Copy of the bill, receipts dated 07.01.2019 are Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6. Also the complainant has valid driving licence, which is Ex.C-8 and he is entitled for full insurance amount of the said repair bill, but till date no payment has been given to the complainant by the OP No.2 and as such, he file the present complaint.

7.                On the other hand, in their reply, OP No.2 and 3 stated that as per Surveyor Report dated Ex.OP2-3/2, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.6,75,000/- has been credited to the account of the complainant through NEFT on 29.03.2019. The motor claim form alongwith discharge voucher of Rs.6,75,000/- is Ex.OP2-3/1, Survey Report is Ex.OP2-3/2, Discharge Voucher cum Satisfaction Note is Ex.OP2-3/3 and Payment Voucher is Ex.OP2-3/4.

8.                After considering over all facts, we reached to the conclusion that as per survey report Ex.OP2-3/2 dated 28.01.2019 repair charges already paid to the complainant and nothing is due towards the OPs and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 

9.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Kuljit Singh

22.12.2020                              Member                          President