Haryana

Kurukshetra

265/2018

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdish Singh

03 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.265  of 2018

Date of Instt.:07.12.2018.

Date of Decision: 03.03.2020.

 

Satish Kumar son of Sh.Inder Singh, resident of village  Daulatpur,           Tehsil Thanesar, Distyrict Kurukshetra.                                                                           

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.United India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Insurance point Opp. State Bank of India, Ambala Road, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, SCO -07, Ist Floor, Sector 17, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

3. M/s Jagdev Motors, Sunderpur Chowk, Umri Road, Kurukshetra, through its Prop.Jagdev Singh son of Sh.Gurmukh Singh, resident of ward No.1, village Sherpur Badhauli, Ambala.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

Present:  Sh.Jagdish Singh Advocate for the complainant.

              Sh.Paras Manocha Advocate for  the OP No.1 and 2.

              Sh.Lovkesh Mehta Advocate for OP No.3.

 

 ORDER

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Satish Kumar against United India Insurance Co.Limited  etc., the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the  complainant is the registered owner of Innova car bearing registration No. HR-12H-8551 and the same is fully insured with the OPs bumper to bumper, vide policy No. 1107843115P112010312  w.e.f. 11.01.2017 to 10.1.2018.   It is averred that the said car of the complainant has met with an accident on 27.07.2016 and the car was repaired by OP No.3 and OP No.3 assured that the claim would be definitely released to the complainant and he called the surveyor, who took the photographs of the vehicle in question and completed all other formalities and after repair of the said car charges of Rs.62,885/-, the complainant issued the cheque No.025883 dated 25.07.2018 to the OP No.3.  The complainant approached the OPs several times for payment of the claim but the account of the complainant was closed by the OPs on 13.04.2017  without any intimation and notice and refused to pay the claim. It is further averred that the OP No.3 has already filed a complaint against the complainant u/s 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the amount of repair which is fixed for 10.01.2019 Thus, the complainant is suffering due to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and has claimed Rs.30,000/- as damages besides payment of claim amount of Rs.62,885/- from the Ops.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 have admitted the factum of insurance of the vehicle as correct.  The complainant has submitted  Motor claim Forum and letter to depute the surveyor to assess the loss with the answering OPs and after filing of the claim the answering OPs deputed Mr. T.P.Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and the surveyor visited the workshop of OP No.3 and examined and assessed the loss as per estimate submitted by the complainant. The surveyor again inspected  the vehicle on  submission of supplementary estimate by the complainant. Thereafter, the answering OP have deputed Er.G.S.Virk, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Consultant engineer and Valuer for final  inspection of the vehicle and he visited the workshop of OP No.3 but the  vehicle was not available at  workshop.  The surveyor requested the complainant personally as well as telephonically to produce the vehicle for re-inspection alongwith salvage and finally vide letters dated 27.2.2017 and 10.03.2017 but the complainant has not produced his vehicle for-inspection alongwith salvage/old parts. Thus, it is prayed that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP no.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The OP No.3  filed its separate written statement. It is submitted that on 30.06.2017, the complainant had visited on the service centre of the OP No.3 and got repaired his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-12H-8551 innova. An amount of Rs.62885/- was made towards the complainant as bill of spare parts and labour charges including service charges and the OP No.3 had issued a bill No.309 dated 30.06.2017 in this regard.  The complainant was the old customer of the answering OP and due to this the complainant had requested the OP no.3 that he would make the said payment to the OP No.3 within 2/3 weeks. After passing of 2/3 weeks, the OP No.3 contacted the complainant and the complainant requested to wait for a month but the payment was not made by the complainant.  Ultimately, a  Panchayat was convened and the complainant issued the cheque bearing No. 025883 dated 25.07.2018 for Rs.62,885/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Pipli in favour of the OP No.3.  The OP No.3 presented the said cheque for encashment but the same was dishonored vide memo dated 13.08.208 due to insufficient funds.  After issuance of legal notice to make the payment, a complaint was filed u/s 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant which is pending in the Court. Thus,  it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP no.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6.             On the other hand, OP No.1 and 2 in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered document Ex.R-1 to ExR-6 and closed their evidence.

7.             OP No.3 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and tendered documents Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-13 and closed its evidence.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

9.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in   the complaint. He argued that the complainant is the registered owner of Innova car bearing registration No. HR-12H-8551 and the same is fully insured with the OPs bumper to bumper, vide policy No. 1107843115P112010312  w.e.f. 11.01.2017 to 10.1.2018.   It is averred that the said car of the complainant has met with an accident on 27.07.2016 and the car was repaired by OP No.3 and OP No.3 assured that the claim would be definitely released to the complainant and he called the surveyor, who took the photographs of the vehicle in question and completed all other formalities and after repair of the said car charges of Rs.62,885/- the complainant issued the cheque No.025883 dated 25.07.2018 to the OP No.3.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for payment of the claim but the account of the complainant was closed by the OPs on 13.04.2017 without any intimation which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

10.            Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 &2  has reiterated all the averments mentioned in his respective reply. He argued  that on submission of Motor claim Forum and letter to depute the surveyor to assess the loss with the answering OPs and after filing of the claim the answering OPs deputed Mr. T.P.Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and the surveyor visited the workshop of OP No.3 and examined and assessed the loss as per estimate sub mitted by the complainant.  It is further argued that  surveyor again inspected  the vehicle on  submission of supplementary estimate by the complainant. Thereafter, the answering OP have deputed Er.G.S.Virk, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, consultant engineer and Valuer for final  inspection of the vehicle and he visited the workshop of OP No.3 but the  vehicle was not available at  workshop and as such there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OPNo.1 and 2.

11.            The learned counsel for the  OP No.3 has argued that the vehicle was repaired by the OP No.3 and an estimate of Rs.62885/- was  issued. The  complainant was the old customer and sought some time for payment but the payment was not made and in the Panchayat the complainant issued the cheque No. 025883 dated 25.07.2018 to the OP No.3 but the  said cheuqe was dishonored due to insufficient funds and thus there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.3.

12.            After having regard to the rival contention of both the parties, it is not in dispute that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP No.1 and 2 as on the date of accident. Accident and damages and repair of the vehicle are also not in dispute.  The complainant has submitted that the OPs have failed to make the payment of the claim, whereas OP No.1 and 2 have submitted that the complainant has  failed to produce the vehicle in question for re-inspection. As per OPs, the complainant failed to produce  the vehicle despite repeated calls and telephone made to him and letter dated 27.2.2017 and 10.03.2017.  The OP No.3 has submitted that the cheque issued for repair charges has been dishonored but this internal matter of the complainant and OP No.3 and this Forum has nothing to do with the same.  However,  as per document Ex.R-7, surveyor report dated 20.12.2016, Surveyor Sh.T.P.Singh, has assessed the loss of the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs.48,665/-, but till date this amount has not been paid by the OP no.1 and 2 to the complainant.  The OPs have submitted that the surveyor called the vehicle through repeated requests and letters  dated 27.2.2017 and 10.03.2017, but we are surprised to see that said surveyor has  already assessed the loss vide report dated 20.12.2016. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to payment of Rs.48,665/- from the OP No.1 and 2  and for non payment of the said amount there  is deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1 and 2.

13.            In view of our above mentioned findings, we accept the zpresent complaint and direct the OP no.1 and 2 to make the payment of Rs.48,665/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of surveyor report i.e. 20.12.2016 till its realization. The OP No.1 and 2 shall also pay Rs.2000/- litigation expenses. The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to make the compliance of this order within  a period of thirty days from of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 03.03.2020                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                 President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                               Member.