Bihar

Gaya

CC/64/2016

Vijay Nandan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. – 64 of 2016

Vijay Nandan Gupta son of late Kalicharan Gupta, village and post office -Dobhi, Police Station- Dobhi, District -Gaya..... Complainant

                                         V/s
1. The manager, legal Chola Mandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd floor, IG Complex, West boring Canal Road, opposite hotel Lalita, Patna
2. Workshop manager, Tata MSY Motors,Naili Road, Gaya.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:- 10.01.2018                          Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

                              1. The instant case has been filed  by the complainant against the opposite party for payment of expenses made by him on repairing of his damaged mini bus ,registration number BR 2M

                                    (2)                  Case No.-64-2016

/                                 2. In brief, the complainant's case is that he is owner of a Mini Bus, registration number BR2M/ /

                                       3. On notice, opposite party number 1 appeared and filed his written statement, but opposite Party number 2 did not

                                    (3)                  Case No.-64-2016

appear and so ex party proceeding was initiated against him.

                                        4. As per written statement of opposite party number 1 ,it is true that the vehicle in question was insured by his company and as appears from FIR lodged on 20 October

                              5. Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for.

                              6. Insurance of the vehicle in question and lodging SDE case by the complainant about the accident of the vehicle is admitted. The dispute is only regarding to the amount of payment.

                            7. The complainant is claiming ₹3,25,

                                        (4)              Case No.-64-2016

                                8. Both party have filed evidence on affidavits and documents. The complainant has filed original copy of Pollution under control Certificate, Form 38, Form 23, Insurance paper, tax token and tax invoice. The opposite party has filed Xerox copy of Motor final Survey Report (commercial) supported with affidavit by the Surveyor.

                                  9. It appears from the tax invoice submitted by the complainant that the damaged vehicle in insurance was repaired by MSY Motors and ₹ 3,25,

                               10. Hence, after considering the admitted facts of the case, the evidences on affidavit of both parties and also on documents filed by them we arrive on the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the complainant is entitled to get the actual cost paid by him on the repairing of his damage vehicle under insurance with interest at rate of 8% per annum from the

                                    (5)                  Case No.-64-2016            

date of payment (

     Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                    Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh