PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the Complainant, his Skoda car was insured with the O.P.No.1 under the Policy No.1015003914800. His car was damaged in the flood and information was given to the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 asked the Complainant to hand over the car to the O.P.No.2 for repair.  The O.P.No.2 gave estimate of Rs.6,50,000/-. The O.P.No.1 appointed Surveyor and the Surveyor reduced the estimate.  The repairs were delayed by the O.P.No.2 on the pretext of permission.  As per policy, it was for the O.P.No.1 to take decision of repairs.  The O.P.No.2 illegally started demanding money from the Complainant.  There is no privity of contract in between Complainant and the O.P.No.2. There was conspiracy in between O.P.No.1 and 2 and therefore the O.P.No.2 drastically reduced the estimate. The O.P.No.2 was required to give notice of the damaged part and to give opportunity to the Complainant to check it with other mechanic.  The O.P.No.2 claims that he had carried out complete repairs and he asked the Complainant to take delivery of the car after paying money.  The O.P.No.2 refused to give guarantee and warrantee of the repairs. As the car was not delivered to the Complainant, the Complainant is suffering loss of Rs.1,000/- per day.  The O.P.No.1 is liable to indemnify the loss of the Complainant.  Therefore, the Complainant has filed this Complaint to direct the O.P.No.1 to hand over car to the Complainant with usual guarantee and warrantee in writing.  In the alternative, the O.P.No.1 be directed to reinstate the new Skoda car or to pay the value of the Skoda car.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest.  He has claimed litigation cost of Rs.2 Lakhs. 

2)                The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement.  The policy is admitted.  This Complaint can not be decided before this Forum in summary procedure as the matter requires elaborate trial.  The policy was in force from 12^th January, 2010 to 11^th January, 2011.  The terms and conditions of the policy are binding on both the party.  The Surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss.  The depreciation applicable on the metal part is applicable as per age of the vehicle and on plastic and rubber part is 50% irrespective of the age of the vehicle.  As per terms and conditions of the policy, the liability of this Opponent comes to Rs.1,57,029/-.  This Opponent sent discharge voucher to the Complainant. In spite of several reminders and requests, the Complainant failed to execute the discharge voucher.  The Complainant was informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery on completion of repairs.  The Complainant was requested to pay his share but the Complainant failed to pay his share and take delivery.  The assessment of damage was done by the IRDA Licensed Surveyor.  The IDV of the insured vehicle is Rs.5,43,507/- and the assessed loss was Rs.1,57,029/-.  There was no conspiracy in between the O.P.No.1 and 2.  This Opponent is acted as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The Complainant was informed that the vehicle was ready.  It was reinspected by the Surveyor and it was found to be repaired satisfactorily.  The Complainant failed to take the delivery of the vehicle and pay his share.  Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement.  The car was towed to the garage of this Opponent on 22^nd July, 2010.  On 23^rd July, 2010, IRDA Licensed Surveyor was appointed.  On 24^th July, 2010, the Surveyor surveyed the car.  This Opponent has no role to play between insurance company and the car owner.  The Complainant was informed that unless he gives permission, no repair work will be started.  On 30^th August, 2010, the Complainant gave permission to start the work.  On 3^rd September, 2010, the Complainant agreed to pay his 50% share in advance.  But, he failed to pay.  Due to delay, Engine Timing Part was found corroded.  It was for the Surveyor to decide which part should be replaced and which part should be reused.  On 30^th September, 2010, the car was ready on repair.  The total repair bill was Rs.2,51,785/-.  The amount payable by the O.P.No.1 was Rs.1,57,029/- and by the Complainant was Rs.94,756/-.  The Complainant was requested to pay and take delivery.  However, he failed.  The Complainant also refused to sign the document of the O.P.No.1.  The car was occupying the space in garage with daily expenses of Rs.500/-.  This Opponent carried out the repair as per the directions of the Surveyor.  This Opponent has right to demand the bill amount for the repairs.  The Complainant agreed to pay his 50% share in advance.  But, he failed.  Therefore, the Complainant be directed to pay the dues with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 

4)                After hearing all the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the vehicle was insured with the O.P.No.1.  It was damaged in the flood.  The vehicle was taken to the garage of the O.P.No.2.  The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are not disputed by the parties.  Those are binding on the insurer and insured.  The O.P.No.1/Insurance Company is ready to compensate in terms of insurance policy.  Therefore, the Surveyor was appointed to assess the damage.  The Surveyor submitted the report.  The O.P.No.1/Insurance Company was ready to pay its share as per the terms of the policy.  The Complainant disputed his liability to pay his share.  According to the Complainant, his consent was not taken for the repairs of the vehicle.  On the other hand, it is the case of the O.P.No.2 that the vehicle was repaired after consent by the Complainant.  Thus, there is dispute in between the Complainant and the O.P.No.2.  The vehicle is in possession of the O.P.No.2.  In the Complaint para 4, the Complainant has specifically stated that there is no privity of contract in between him and the O.P.No.2.  Thus, the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P.No.2 and the O.P.No.2 is not the service provider.  Therefore, this Forum has no authority to adjudicate the dispute in between the Complainant and the O.P.No.2.  The O.P.No.1 has clarified that the O.P.No.1 is ready to pay its share as per terms of the policy.  In written statement, the O.P.No.2 has claimed its repairing charges.  As the Complainant is not the consumer of the O.P.No.2, this Forum can not give directions to the Complainant to pay charges of O.P.No.2.  The vehicle is in possession of the O.P.No.2.  The O.P.No.2 is ready to give possession of the car after payment of repairing charges.  As discussed above, this Forum can not decide the dispute in between the Complainant and the O.P.No.2. Therefore, it is necessary to give direction to the Complainant to approach the appropriate court.

6)                The procedure before this Forum is summary procedure.  The Complaint filed by the Complainant requires elaborate evidence.  As discussed above, the vehicle is in possession of the O.P.No.2.  The O.P.No.2 is claiming his repairing charges.  Therefore, this Forum can not give relief as claimed by the Complainant.  Hence, it is necessary to give liberty to the Complainant to approach the appropriate court.  Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Liberty is given to the Complainant to approach the appropriate court.
3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 3^rd November, 2015