Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/18/2021

Sumit Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Kaajla Adv.

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	18 of 2021
Date of Institution	25.02.2021
Date of Decision	10.08.2022

 

Sumit Sharma Advocate son of Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma resident of House No.2042, Sector 13, Bhiwani Haryana at present residing at flat No.602, GMS Homes, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur (Punjab).

 

     …..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Opposite Nehru Park Bhiwani (Haryana).
2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111,
   Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.
3. Proprietor/Partner/Manager, United Car Care, SCO No.64, (back side), Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                    …..Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for the appellant.

                      Sh. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

                      Sh. Mohan Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                           

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.01.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (now District Commission-I), UT, Chandigarh (in the short ‘the District Commission’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.452 of 2018, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of a Tata Vista Quadrajet car bearing Registration No.HR-16H-8485 and it was duly insured with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is its regional office. It was stated that in the month of November 2016, the car in question was hit by someone badly in standing position downstairs at complainant’s flat situated at Zirakpur. It was further stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 where the agent namely Mr. Arun of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 was also present and it was undertaken by the agent of Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 to repair the car satisfactorily and later on to submit the claim to the insurer.  It was further stated that the car was left for repair on 11.11.2016 alongwith the documents and the complainant had to spend Rs.1,000/- as tow away expenses. It was further stated that after 3-4 days, when the complainant visited OP-3, he met one Mr. Kiran who introduced himself as surveyor of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and obtained his signatures on blank claim forms. It was further stated that the complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 on 18.11.2016,  on account of repair of the car.  It was further stated that in the first week of December 2016, Opposite Party No.3 called the complainant and showed its inability to find out the rear axle tube of the car, which was expensive part, at Panchkula and Chandigarh and therefore, the complainant arranged the second hand part alongwith rear shocker from Bhiwani and he paid Rs.17,300/- for the same.  It was further stated that on 30.12.2016, the complainant again paid visit to Opposite Party No.3 and bill of Rs.19,993/- was raised. It was further stated that the claim on being submitted was processed for Rs.20,250/- only and the said amount was deposited in the account of the complainant, but the remaining amount as per bills was not paid to the complainant despite requests. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written statement and raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable and misconceived one. It was stated that the complainant was fully satisfied and final survey was conducted by Mr. Kiran Kumar and he found the amount of labour, paint, repair, parts etc. was Rs.21,750.84 and towing charges Rs.700/-.  It was further stated that the total loss was found to be Rs.21,750.84 and after repair of the said vehicle salvage of Rs.500/- and excess clause of Rs.1,000/- were deducted and net amount of Rs.20,250/- was received by the complainant as full and final settlement by signing the discharge voucher and the claim was processed as per rules and terms and conditions of the company.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party No.3 seeking their version of the case, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, proceeded ex-parte on 15.11.2018.
5. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
6. The parties led evidence, in support of his case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint. 
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Commission, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The appellant/complainant has submitted that the impugned order is suffering from material illegalities and is contrary to the actual and factual position. The complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
12. In this case, the appellant’s claim was processed by respondents No.1 & 2 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the final report of the surveyor was submitted which quantified the loss @ Rs.20,951/- after deducting towing charges, salvage and excess clause. The surveyor had conducted the survey and prepared the details of assessment after physical verification and in consultation with the mechanic of Respondent No.3. It is observed that Sr. No. Annexure C-5 issued by the respondent No.3 replacement of rear axle tube with shocker has also been mentioned. Further, reliance upon the document and Annexure C-6 dated 30.12.2016 issued by the Respondent No.3 and the total amount mentioned therein is Rs.19,043/-, but more than this the amount has been disbursed to the appellant and that too on the discharge voucher having been signed by the appellant himself, who is a learned advocate by profession. Therefore, the additional bill of Rs.17,300/- submitted by the appellant is not payable, since already an amount of Rs.20,250/- has been finally disbursed to the appellant and he has duly signed the discharge voucher and there was acceptance of the claim without any protest. Hence, falling in line with the learned District Commission, this Commission does not see any interference of the order passed by the learned District Commission, and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

10.08.2022

                    

                                                              Sd/-

                         [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                        Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                      [RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

Gp