Complainant Bharat Sharma vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to release the vehicle after its repair and deliver the same to him in perfect condition after complete repair as required or in the alternative, a new vehicle be ordered to be released or to pay Rs.8,26,615/- as the costs of vehicle and refund Rs.50,000/- which has been paid by him to the opposite party no.3 alongwith the damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as illegal harassment, mentally and physically and Rs.90,000/- which has been spent by him for taking the vehicle on hirer basis for fulfilling his day to day work and daily needs besides costs of litigations  in the interest of justice and fair play.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased i 20 Car bearing Registration no.PB06AD 4217, Engine no.D4FCFM358744, Chasis no.MALBM51RLFM136099 vide Invoice dated 26.08.2015 for Rs.8,26,615/- from the opposite party no.3 vide invoice no.VS/116/2015-16 and the said vehicle was duly insured by the opposite party no.3 with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for  and on his behalf vide Insurance Policy No.11300031150300319548 dated 26.8.2015 for Rs.7,85,284/- for the period from 26.8.2015  to 25.8.2016 and the premium paid by him was Rs.24,954/- and this was a DEP Cab Policy and was cashless policy and it was assured by the opposite parties that in case of any happening or repair of the vehicle, he is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party no.3 as the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have tied up with the opposite party no.3 for Cashless Scheme and the opposite party no.3 will directly received the expenditure amount from Insurance Company. He has next pleaded that on 12.11.2015 his car was met with an accident and the matter was reported to the police as well as insurance company and the vehicle was brought to service center of opposite party no.3 on 13.11.2015 and since then, vehicle was lying in the service centre of the opposite party no.3 and service center has not started repair work inspite of depositing cash of Rs.50,000/- which was deposited on 31.1.2016. He is suffering unnecessarily mental and physical harassment from the opposite parties and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is pre-mature. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated. As per intimation the loss took place on 12.11.2015, intimation regarding loss was given to the company on 14.11.2015. Surveyor was detailed immediately to carry out the spot survey, who submitted his report on 20.11.2015. Second Surveyor and loss Assessor was detailed, who did a detailed survey and assessed the loss. His report dated 15.2.2016 was received in office of opposite party on 17.02.2015. The report was forwarded to the approving authority for advice. In the meanwhile the complainant filed the present complaint. The complainant instead of getting into litigation can still approach the office of the opposite party and the claim can be settled. Repair was not undertaken because it is not economical. The claim can be settled as per IDV after deducting the salvage value which as per surveyor is Rs.85,000/-. On merits, it was submitted that complainant is entitled to compensation for the loss occurred to his said vehicle, within the frame work of rules and policy terms and conditions. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company or any of its employees. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the opposite party and to cause harm the reputation of the opposite party; there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the preset complaint by the opposite party and the complainant is guilty for his own acts and conduct. On merits, it was admitted that complainant purchased I 20 Car from the opposite party on 26.8.2015 for Rs.8,26,615/- and was insured with the opposite parties no.1 and 3. It was cashless policy and in this case, repair cost has to be paid directly by the insurance company. It has been next submitted that actually after issuance of the job card on 14.11.2015, intimation was given to the insurance company and thereafter as per instructions of the insurance company, estimate was got prepared and estimate of Rs.10,17,089.63/- was given to the Insurance Company and insurance company has offered amount of Rs.7.10.000/- but no settlement has been made by the complainant and as such, no instructions have been given by either party to the opposite party. However, the complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- with the opposite party and he insisted the opposite party to start the repair. But, since no settlement has been made by the complainant with insurance company, as such opposite party has not carried out the repair work of the car. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.    Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

6.       Opposite party no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Shiv Lal Branch Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith the other document Ex.OP-1,2/2  and closed the evidence.

7.      Opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harpreet Singh working as Service Manager Ex.OP-3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP-3/9 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the prime dispute prompted at the OP insurers’ non-settlement/delay in deciding settlement of the complainant’s accident claim that stands admittedly intimated to them on the 15.11.2015, the accident having occurred on 12.11.2015.

9.       We further note with concern that the present complaint is pre mature as the report of the surveyors was forwarded to the approving authority for advice and the matter was pending and in the meanwhile the complainant filed the present complaint and as such the OP insurers have yet not finally decided/repudiated/allowed the present insurance claim till the (date of) present orders. The OP insurers have passed over the ‘delay’ to the substantial claim-amount being that of a total-loss to an IDV of Rs.7,85,284/- with the net salvage value @ Rs.85,000/- only; but have duly expressed their inclination to have decided the pending claim on above terms. The complainant, on the other hand, has claimed ‘relief’ by way of a new car and/or its invoice price of Rs. 8.26 Lac (plus Rs.50,000/- paid to the OP3 workshop for repairs etc) with interest/ cost and compensation etc.

10.     In the light of the all above, and under the prevailing circumstances, as the OP’s have yet not finally decided the insurance claim of the complainant and as such the present complaint is pre mature and we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by issuing necessary directions to the complainant to approach the OP insurers with the copies of the necessary supporting evidentiary documents etc besides other OP desired document (if any) within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders whereas the OP insurers, in turn, shall decide/settle the claim and convey the same (its decision) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of these documents .

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 22, 2016                                              Member

*MK*