Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by Opposite party is directed against the order dated 14.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1371 of 2009 filed by complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OP was directed to pay to the complainant remaining amount of Rs.81,249/- spent by him on repairs alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant got insured his Hyundai Elantra CRDI car bearing registration No.PB-27-C-0092 with OP vide insurance policy/cover note No.20070230335 for the period from 22.01.2008 to midnight of 21.01.2009 for assured sum of Rs.7.50 lacs by paying premium of Rs.19853/-. In the month of Sep.2008 when the complainant was going towards Kishangarh, in the way due to rain the water had collected on the road and while he was crossing the water, his car stopped. The complainant towed his car to the workshop of M/s KLG Hyundai, Chandigarh (authorized service center of Hyundai company). OP was intimated about the loss but no surveyor visited the premises of M/s KLG Hyundai for assessing the loss . After waiting for a long time, M/s KLG Hyundai repaired the car and demanded a sum of Rs.1,56,049/-. In the meantime, the surveyor appointed by OP also visited the premises of M/s KLG Hyundai and inspected the car. According to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.1,56,049/- to M/s KLG Hyundai and took the delivery of car. Thereafter, he received a cheque of Rs.74,800/- from OP regarding repairs of his car. It was alleged that the amount paid by OP for repairs of the car was much less than the amount spent by him. Even the report of the surveyor had not been shown to him and despite making repeated requests for payment of the remaining amount of Rs.81,249/- OP failed to reimburse the amount. Complainant then got served a legal notice dated 17.02.2009 upon the OP but to no effect, hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking indemnification of the remaining amount alongwith compensation etc. 4. Notice of the complaint was served upon OP but nobody appeared on its behalf before the District Forum to contest the case in person or through counsel, therefore, OP was proceeded against exparte. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for complainant allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite party has come up in this appeal. Alongwith appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 57 days has been filed . For the reasons recorded therein , the delay is condoned. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/ OP is that the learned District Forum passed the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 without affording an opportunity of being heard as no summons were received by appellant. Further, upon receipt of information about the alleged loss, a surveyor namely P.K.Company was appointed who gave its report assessing the loss at Rs.74,800/- and the said amount had been paid to the insured and he is not entitled to any amount. However, these points have been repelled by learned counsel for complainant. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for OP that the complaint had been decided at its back is not tenable for the reason that despite due service none appeared on behalf of OP to contest the complaint by filing reply and evidence before the District Forum, so it was proceeded against ex parte. 8. After going through the record and material brought on record it is categorically made out that the complainant had received a cheque of Rs.74,800/- whereas annexure C-2 which is invoice dated 18.9.2008 consisting of three pages goes a longway to show that complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,56,049/- to M/s KLG Hyundai towards the repair of car which had gone out of order during the currency of the policy but at the same time it is clear that there was also no delay on the part of OP in sending the cheque for Rs.74,800/- after making assessment by the surveyor. Thus, there was no delay or any act of causing harassment on the part of OP. In these circumstances, we feel that awarding of compensation of Rs.20,000/- by the District Forum for mental agony and harassment is not justified. So, the impugned order qua the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- is set aside. However, rest of the relief regarding payment of remaining amount of Rs.81,249/- together with litigation costs of Rs.5000/- is maintained. 9. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. OP shall now pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.81,249/- + Rs.5000/- =86249/- within one month from the date copy of the order is received, failing which OP shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
