Haryana

Ambala

CC/216/2014

LT.COL.S.K KAUSHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER MODERN AUTOMOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 216 of 2014

                                                        Date of instt:  20.08.2014.

                                                        Date of decision: 14.11.2017.

 

Lt.Col S.K.Kaushal (Retd.) s/o late Pandit J.N.Kaushal r/o House No.6281, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

                                                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

1.The Manager, Modern Automobiles, Adjoining Model Town Crossing G.T.Road, Ambala City-134003.

2.The Manager, IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Address c/o Model Automobiles 2^nd Address 6330, 2^nd Floor above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt (Haryana)133001.

3.Shri Rajeev Gupta/his predecessor Maruti Suzuki Palam Gurgaon Regional Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon.

                                 

                                                                           …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:    SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                  SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                      MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER              

 

Present: -  Complainant in person.

                Sh.Keshav Sharma, Advocate for OP Nos.1 & 3.                                Sh.Mohinder Bindal, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

                Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is registered owner of Car Alto LXI bearing registration No.HR01Z-6614 and the same was purchased and insured from OP No.1. The insurance was renewed further by Op No.1 from 26.12.2011 to 26.12.2012. On 21.08.2012 at about 12.50 P.M. the complainant handed-over his vehicle to OP No.1 for repair who promised to repair the same with a delivery date upto 28.08.2012. The Op No.1 did not deliver the car much after the expiry of delivery date; therefore, he had to hire a taxi to visit Fortis Hospital, Mohali for the treatment of his old aged injured wife after spending about Rs.2000/- per day w.e.f. 29.08.2012. on 04.09.2012 the Op No.1 informed that the car is ready for delivery and further asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.11,752/-. The Op No.1 further asked to sign on satisfaction voucher but when the complainant did not sign without making necessary correction therein then Op No.1 refused to accept the payment and detained the complainant and his car. On 05.09.2012 the complainant got registered a DDR against Op No.1 in Baldev Nagar Police Post at Model Town Ambala City where it was directed to accept the amended/corrected voucher & to return the complainant’s car. On 06.09.2012 the Op No.1 after correcting the voucher accepted the payment and delivered the car to complainant. As per terms and conditions of the insurance which is a cashless policy the complainant was required to pay compulsory deduction of Rs.500/- and the remaining cost was to be borne by OP No.2 who had been burdened with Rs.9831/- out of the total payment of Rs.21783/- . At the time of insurance it was advocated cashless policy involving only compulsory deduction of Rs.500/- but the Op No.1 charged Rs.11752/- from the complainant without furnishing the details of total amount of Rs.21783/- which shows the indulgence of OPs in unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the OPs is also deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11.

2.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is misuse of the process of law as being an Advocate the complainant is fully conversant with the legal complications and even the vehicle is out of warranty being model of 2009. The amount was charged and paid by the complainant at his own for the repair work done on the vehicle of the complainant, therefore, question of any violation of terms and conditions does not arise at all. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being filed after concealing the material facts from this Forum and the complainant has no cause of action to file the same. On receipt of the intimation qua the damage of vehicle bearing registration No.HR01Z-6614 surveyor Mr.Anil Ajmani was appointed who visited the workshop of Op No.1 where the vehicle was parked for repair works and after inspecting the vehicle assessed the actual loss to the tune of Rs.10963/- and that too was made without any delay being a cashless policy.  As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the OP No.2 was only liable to pay for the loss connected/related to the incident and as per assessment of the surveyor such loss after deducting the applicable depreciation amount and excess clause and rest of the amount of the amount spent on the repair or any other extra job was to be borne by the insured himself, therefore, the complainant had paid certain amount on that count.  The insurance policy was obtained by the complainant is different from the insurance policy called ‘Bumper to Bumper’ wherein no depreciation is deducted from the assessed loss but in that policy the insurance company is liable to pay for the loss associated and related with the reported incident.  The complainant was given every detail of the assessment by the surveyor much prior to getting his vehicle repaired. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          OP No.3 in its reply has the OP No.3 has fulfilled its obligation under warranty as per the terms and conditions of warranty. The liability of OP being manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause-3 of the warranty policy as set out in the owner’s Manual and service booklet.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.3. The grievance of the complainant is against Op Nos.1 & 2 only and mere acknowledgement or receipt of a complaint does not give any right or cause of action to the complainant against OP. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure R/A-2 and document Annexure R1.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

6.             There are two grievance of the complainant that the vehicle in question has got damaged in accident and he handedover  to OP No.1 for repair and Op No.1 had issued the job slip Annexure C4 dated 21.08.2012 and in this document it has been clearly mentioned that that the estimated delivery date and time is seven days. On that date complainant approached to the OP No.1 for delivery of the vehicle but it did not deliver the vehicle and vehicle was got repaired after due date i.e. on 04.09.2012 as per the document invoice dated 04.09.2012 issued by Op No.1. The complainant was also forced to sign on satisfaction voucher Annexure C5 and OP No.1 issued the repair bill for Rs.21783/- but the insurance company has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.9831/- less than the repaired bill and the complainant was forced to pay the balance amount  to the tune of Rs.11952/- Annexure C4 and the OP No.1 also tried to obtain the signatures of the complainant but being an advocate he could not do the same and after four hours the matter was settled and then the complainant affixed his signature on this very document after feeling highhandedness from the hands of Ops.

7.                     Secondly, the insurance company has not paid the total bill amount to the OP No.1 and even not provided the details of the assessment at the time of assessing the loss, therefore, it clearly shows that the insurance company has wrongly deduct the depreciation as all the repair work was not covered under the policy.

8.                     Now we deal with first grievance of the complainant. It is clear that the OP No.1 has repaired the vehicle in question with assurance in writing to deliver the same after repair upto 28.08.2012 (estimated delivery within seven days) Annexure C4.  The version of the complainant is that the vehicle was got repaired by Op No.1 duly intimated to him on 04.09.2012 but the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 06.09.2012 after intervention of the police as per Annexure C7 (copy of DDR dated 06.09.2012) which shows that the complainant being a old aged person has been harassed by the Op No.1. Perusal of the case file reveals that the dispute which took place was due to forcing of Op No.1 to the complainant for signing on the satisfaction voucher Annexure C5 wherein amount of Rs.21783/- was shown initially but the amount of Rs.9831/- has been shown to be paid by the insurance company  after making cutting on the amount.   This very document further shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.11752/- as per bill dated 04.09.2012.  No doubt the Op No.1 had to charge the bill amount from the complainant after   deducting the amount paid by the insurance company as assessed by their surveyor. The Op No.1 has not denied the factum of the registration of DDR as well as disputed satisfaction voucher which was corrected after the intervention of the police and vehicle was released on 06.09.2012 but Op No.1 also failed to clarify in the reply as to why the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 06.09.2012 after delaying of nine days despite the fact that in Annexure C4 the time for delivering the vehicle was mentioned as seven days tentatively (upto 28.08.2012). This Forum has no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the Op No.1 has been deficient in providing service to the complainant. So far claiming the compensation on the ground that he (complainant) had to take his wife to hospital at Mohali after hiring a taxi by paying a sum of Rs.2000/- per day w.e.f. 29.08.2012 is not sustainable because as per medical record the wife of the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 11.08.2012 and was discharged on 17.08.2012 which shows that she had admitted in the hospital much prior to the date 21.08.2012 when the vehicle was handedover to the OP No.1 for repair after accident.

9.             Now we are dealing with second grievance of the complainant. Perusal of the final survey report Annexure R1 reveals that the vehicle in question was inspected by the surveyor on 22.08.2012 with date of accident on 19.08.2012 after receiving the estimate issued by Op No.1 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.10963/-. It is also not disputed that that out of total bill amount the complainant has paid Rs.11752/- and the insurance company has paid Rs.9831/- Annexure C5. We have gone through the surveyor report which shows that he had rightly deduced the depreciation as per the IRDA instruction and there is not violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of assessing the loss. However, the insurance company has sent the fewer amount to the tune of Rs.1132/-.

10.                   Keeping in view the above facts and circumstance of the present case we partly allow the present complaint with a directions to the Op No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.1132/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12 % from the date of making the payment by the complainant to the OP No.1 till realization of the amount. The Op No.1 is further directed to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for delaying in delivering the vehicle in time without explaining any reason to the complainant within a period of 30 days failing which it will carry interest @ 12 % per annum till realization of the amount. Complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed. The Op Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the cost of proceeding which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- to be paid jointly and severally. Order be complied with within 30 days on receiving the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 14.11.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                               

 

                                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                 MEMBER

 

 

                                               

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER