Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No. 359
Instituted on: 25.07.2019
Decided on: 27.11.2024
Anil s/o Sh. Hari Om R/o Village Brahmanwas Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak.
…..….Complainant
Vs.
- The Tata A.I.General Insurance Company Ltd., throughits Branch Manager 2nd Floor White House, Opp.Narain Complex, Civil Road Rohtak.
- M/s Badhwar and Co. (Agency of Royal Enfield) Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
……Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Mrs. TriveniVerma Advocate for the complainant.
Mrs. Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for Opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present compliant, as per complainant, are that he is the registered owner of a motorcycle bearing no.HR-12AG-4753, duly insured with opposite party no.1 vide policy No. 0146716973(New) for the period of 24.08.2018 to 23.08.2019. On 25.05.2019, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident in the area of village BrahmananwasP.S.SadarRohtak was damaged. After the accident, complainant gave information of this accident to the opposite parties. The complainant took his motorcycle in the workshop of opposite party No.2 and it was found that some parts were damaged. Estimate of Rs.22765/- was prepared by the Engineers and surveyor of opposite party No.1 &2 and the complainant left the motorcycle in the workshop of opposite party no.2 for getting it repaired. Complainant also submitted all the requisite documents i.e. copy of R.C., DL, Insurance policy etc. with the opposite parties. On 10.06.2019 it was told by the Manager that opposite party no.1 has denied to indemnify the claim/repudiated the claim of the motorcycle. The complainant was asked to make the payment of Rs.22765/- for the replacement and repair of damaged parts. In compelling circumstances, the complainant had to take his motorcycle without repair and that too after payment of Rs.2570/- to the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the motorcycle of the complainant is fully insured with the opposite party no.1 and the same is under warranty period. If some part of the motorcycle was suffering from manufacturing defect, in that event, the same is liability of opposite party no.2 to replace the same. But the opposite parties have wrongly repudiated the claim without any reason. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the parts and repair the motorcycle as per estimate of claim no.0821481296A assessed by the opposite parties and to return the amount of Rs.2570/-, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notices of the present complaint were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply, has submitted that the vehicle no.HR12AG4753 of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the same was met with an accident on 25.05.2019. On receipt of intimation, the vehicle was surveyed by inhouse surveyor of opposite party(the loss being less than Rs.50000/-) and loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1527/- The opposite party released the payment of Rs.1527/- in favour of opposite party No.2/workshop on 28.06.2019 through NEFT after taking duly signed discharge voucher from the complainant/insured. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant brought his Royal Enfield motorcycle to the opposite party in accidental condition. As the vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1, so claim was intimated to the opposite party no.1 by the complainant and thereafter the surveyor deputed by the opposite party no.1 inspected and conducted the survey of the aforesaid vehicle whereas estimate of loss amounting to Rs.22765/- was prepared by the opposite party. As per surveyor’s approval and complainant’s consent, the job work of the vehicle was started and the total accidental repair amount was Rs.2178/- including the cost of parts and labour. The vehicle was also serviced on the instructions of the complainant vide invoice no.SP10105192001497 dated 10.06.2019 for Rs.1012/- thereby making the total bill amount of Rs.3190/- to be paid by the complainant against which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2570/- whereas an amount of Rs.620/- remained outstanding to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party and the aforesaid vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 approved and released the claim of Rs.1525/- to the opposite party after adjusting the remaining outstanding amountof Rs.620/-, Cheque No.00491 dated 10.08.2019 of ICICI Bank Ltd. amounting to Rs.900/- was handed over to the complainant but the said cheque has not been encashed till date by the complainant for the reasons best known to himand the said cheque must be outdated by now. Opposite party is still ready to make the payment of aforesaid cheque amount to the complainant against proper receipt. It is also submitted that opposite party is only a dealer whereas the liability of theproduct is of the manufacturer as the warranty is givenby manufacturer and not the dealer. Otherwise also, the complainant in his entire complaint has not uttered even a single word about the kind of manufacturing defect and that which part is suffering from manufacturing defect. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8in her evidence and closed the same on 08.10.2020. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R-1/1 to Ex.R1/3 and closed the same on 11.11.2021. Opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/5 and closed his evidence on 18.04.2022.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, as per the complainant, the estimated cost of the repair of the vehicle was Rs.22765/-. To prove this fact, he has placed on record estimated cost of Rs.22765/- as Ex.C2. He further submitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2570/- to the respondent no.2 on dated 10.06.2019 regarding the repair of the vehicle. As per the written statement filed by opposite party no.1, the surveyor of insurance company assessed the loss as Rs.1527/- vide loss assessment sheet dated 28.06.2019 and the opposite party no.1 released the payment of Rs.1527/- in favour of the opposite party No.2/workshop on 28.06.2019 through NEFT. As per written statement filed by respondent no.2, some parts were replaced in the alleged vehicle. Thereafter repair cost of the vehicle comes to Rs.2178/-. Vehicle of the complainant was serviced and service cost was Rs.1012/-, total amount comes to Rs.3190/-, out of which the complainant has only paid Rs.2570/- and remaining amount of Rs.620/- was still outstanding against the complainant. It has been further submitted that opposite party No.2 received a payment of Rs.1525/- through NEFT against the damages of the vehicle and after adjusting the amount of Rs.620/- which was outstanding, a cheque No.00491 dated 10.08.2019 of ICICI Bank amounting to Rs.900/- was handed over to the complainant. But the same has not been encashed by the complainant till date. The complainant has pleaded that vehicle of the complainant is fully insured with respondent no.1 and motorcycle is under warranty, if any part of vehicle has manufacturing defect, in that situation, the same is liable to be replaced by respondent no.2 without any cost and remaining amount will be paid by the insurance company. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of both of the respondents. To prove his complaint , complainant has placed on recordaffidavit and photocopies of 8 documents. Affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Estimate bill Ex.C2, Ex.C3 policy, Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 are RC, Ex.C6 is Aadhar Card, Ex.C7 is PAN Card Ex.C8 is driving license. On the other hand, respondent no.1 has filed policy Ex.R1/1, Ex.R1/2 is assessment processing sheet, Ex.R1/3 is satisfactory discharge voucher. But in this voucher, claim number, policy number and name is not mentioned. Only amount and vehicle number is mentioned. Hence the same is false and fabricated one. Opposite party no.2 has filed 5 documents.Ex.RW2/1 is estimate, Ex.R2/2 is bill amounting to Rs.777/-, Ex.RW2/3 is labour invoice amounting to Rs.401/-, Ex.R2/4 is the bill amounting to Rs.1000/- and Ex.R2/5 is Service Invoice amounting to Rs.1012/-In this complaint the complainant has pleaded that it is the prime duty of respondent no.2 to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant because if some parts which were not covered by the insurance company in that situation the respondent no.2 should repair the vehicle under warranty. But as per our opinion, the complainant failed to place on record any document to prove the fact that how many parts were having manufacturing defect. In fact the vehicle was brought in the service centre of the respondent no.2 for the repair of accidental vehicle. The service was also done by the opposite party’s service centre. Moreover complainant has failed to place on record any bill to prove the fact that he again got repaired the vehicle from outside the service centre and how much money he spent on the repair of vehicle. But somehow, when we peruse the estimate, we are of the opinion that there are damages in the vehicle more than the assessment made by the surveyor. No doubt, some parts are repairable but some parts cannot be repaired and the same will be replaced. Hence, as per our view opposite party No.1 insurance company has made the less assessment of claim and therefore, opposite party No.1 is liable to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant in addition to the amount of Rs.1525/- already paid by the opposite party No.1. It is also observed that cheque of Rs.900/- issued by the opposite party No.2 in favour of the complainant has not been got encashed by the complainant. Hence the opposite party No.2 is also liable to pay a fresh cheque of Rs.900/- to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of loss suffered by him and also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay a cheque of Rs.900/-(Rupees nine hundred only) to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged awarded amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and opposite party no.2 to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.900/-(Rupees nine hundred only) respectively, from the date of order i.e. 27.11.2024 till its realisation to the complainant.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.11.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
