This is a case Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. to pay Rs.1,03,387/- for repairing cost with labour charge of the damage vehicle No.WB-60F/2571 with interest @ 9% p.a., Rs.45,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant was the owner of vehicle bearing No.WB-60F/2571, model Bolero SLX BS-III and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P., which was valid up to 16.01.2015 and value of the vehicle was assessed Rs.5,00,000/-. The said vehicle met an accident which caused badly damage and the matter was intimated in the P.S. and also the O.P. office. The vehicle in question was repaired and estimated cost of repair was assessed Rs.1,03,387/- by the service centre including labour charges. The surveyor of O.P. assessed loss for damaged vehicle of Rs.37,240/- and the complainant raised objection but the O.P. was forced to sign the payment voucher to the complainant and assured the complainant that balance amount will be paid by the O.P. in short time. The complainant on several occasions knocked the door of the O.P., but the O.P. did not pay heed for making payment. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum for relief.

The O.P. has appeared and contested this case by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia, that the case is not maintainable, the surveyor assessed actual cost of damage to the tune of Rs.39,528/-, the vehicle in question was above 3 years old. So, after necessary deduction, the O.P. paid the amount to the complainant as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

The complainant to prove his case has submitted memo of evidence, photocopies of vehicular documents, vehicle repairing bill and discharge voucher etc.

O.P. to establish its defence has submitted W.V., memo of evidence, oral evidence and photocopies of surveyor report and bank statement, etc.

We carefully perused the complain petition, documents, evidences and considered the arguments advanced by the parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

On careful scrutiny of the case record and documents it reveals that the vehicle in question of the complainant was validly insured with the O.P. The said vehicle met an accident, which caused badly damage and matter was intimated both the Police and O.P./ Insurance Company. The repairing cost of the damaged vehicle was assessed by one service centre a sum of Rs.1,03,387/- including labour charge of repairing. The appointed surveyor by the O.P. was also assessed the loss of damaged vehicle after repairing the same and allowed actual loss of Rs.39,528/- after necessary deduction. The complainant was not satisfied with the assessed amount by surveyor and alleged in the complaint that he was forced to sign the discharge voucher of payment and he was assured for further payment of balanced amount by the O.P. From the copy of surveyor report shows that the surveyor had assessed the loss as per terms of policy condition and mentioned in his report in depreciation column, that the vehicle in question was more than three (3) years old, hence as per motor tariff 25% on metal and 50% on rubber or plastic parts and none on glass imposed. After getting the report of survey the O.P. further deduction some amount and allowed Rs.37,240/- for payment and the said amount was also send to the insured’s/ complainant’s bank account through RTGS but the same was returned back to the O.P.’s account. The O.P. admitted in its evidence that said amount was not transferred to the complainant’s account or make payment subsequently. The complainant is unable to prove in evidence that he was forced to sign the discharge voucher by the O.P.

We find from the report of the surveyor that loss assessed of damaged insured vehicle a sum of Rs.39,528/- after necessary deduction as per Motor Tariff of Insurance Act. The complainant failed to establish his claim, on the other hand the O.P. also negligent to provide proper service to the customer.

In view of the discussion hereinbefore, we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an award and also litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case being No.12/2015 is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.39,528/- as loss of damaged vehicle, pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency of service and pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the calculated total awarded amount will carry interest @9% p.a. till realization. The complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution according to law.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.