Haryana

Sonipat

CC/350/2015

Sumit Singh S/o Anand Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Chander

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.350 of 2015

                                Instituted on:18.09.2015

                                Date of order: 22.04.2016

 

Sumit Singh son of Anand Chaudhary, r/o village Jatheri, tehsil Rai, distt. Sonepat.

                                                ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 204-R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat.

2.The Manager, Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Branch Office at Bahalgarh road, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Satish Chander Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 15.10.2015.

          Sh.  Sanjay Kankarwal  Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the  respondents alleging therein that he got insured his Ritz Car no.HR10U/5751 from respondent no.1 through respondent no.2 under Bumper to Bumper policy and unfortunately, the said car met with an accident and the complainant immediately informed the respondent no.1 who deputed the surveyor. The said surveyor submitted his report to respondent no.1.  The complainant got repaired the car from respondent no.2 who charged Rs.1,23,594/- against the bill.  The complainant has submitted all the bills to the respondent no.1 for its payment.  But the respondent no.1 has only sanctioned the amount of Rs.78,815/-  instead of Rs.123594/- and this act of the respondents have caused harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.2 has appeared and filed the written statement, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2015.

          In reply, the respondent no.2 has submitted that the vehicle was brought by the complainant for its repair, which was done by the respondent and the bill was issued to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has got repaired his vehicle from respondent no.2 who has charged Rs.123594/-, but the respondent no.1 has sanctioned only Rs.78815/- and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the vehicle was brought by the complainant for its repair, which was done by the respondent and the bill was issued to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent no.2 has charged Rs.123594/- from the complainant for the repair of his car.  The document Ex.C10 shows that the respondent no.1 has approved the claim of Rs.78815/-.

          Now the question arises for consideration before this Forum is as to for what amount the complainant is entitled to?

          In the present case, the respondent no.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte.  Opportunity was given to the respondent no.1 to come present before this Forum  and to contest the complaint, but this opportunity has gone waste since the respondent no.1 has chosen to proceed ex-parte.

          In the Ex.C10, only the amount approved by the competent authority as Rs.78815/- is mentioned.  No criteria has been mentioned as to how this amount was approved by the respondent no.1 particularly when the vehicle of the complainant was insured with respondent no.1 under ‘Bumper to Bumper insurance policy’ and no depreciation was applicable under this policy.  Since the amount of Rs.78815/- has been paid to the complainant, the complainant’s entitlement comes to Rs.44779/- (Rs.123594 – 78815 =Rs.44779/-). Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of Rs.44779/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  It is made clear here that if the cheque of Rs.78815/- was not got encashed by the complainant, in that event, the respondent insurance company shall make the payment of Rs.1,23,594/- to the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands  allowed qua respondent no.1 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 22.04.2016