District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 91/2020.
Date of Institution:11.02.2020.
Date of Order:17.03.2023.
M/s. Vaibhav Adverting Agency Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors, 631, Sector-21-B, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 5R/4, Gobind Bhawan, NIT, Near B.K.Chowk, Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 office contact No. 0129-2416321.
2. Thirty Six Toyota, 14/7, Milestone, Mathura Road, Sector-31, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003.
…Opposite parties.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Devender Singh Kharb, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. D.K.Gosain , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rajneesh Sharma, counsel for Opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 15.11.2017, the vehicle Toyota Fortuner 3.0L, HR-51-AY-7979 was insured by the opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 2210003117P111601629 valid from the period 15.11.2017 to 14.11.2018 .. On 24.11.2017 the said vehicle being driven by Mr. Vaibhav Garg S/o Mr. Vinod Garg was met with an accident 10:50 p.m. at Surajkund Road, Near Gold Finch Hotel, Petrol Pump, Faridabad. Mr. Vaibhav Garg while saving the motor cycle rider, who came suddenly in front of the vehicle, moved the vehicle on the wrong side and collided with another vehicle. It was important to note that Mr. Vaibhav Garg was carrying the driving licence (valid till dated 28.4.2033) at the time of the accident. On the same night the said vehicle was towed away and taken to workshop of opposite party No.2 at Thirty Six Toyota – 14/7 milestone, Main Mathura road, Faridabad for repairing the damaged vehicle. On 25.11.2017, the complainant through its director Ms. Anuradha Garg personally met the officials of opposite party No.2 at workshop and provided all necessary documents for example, original copy of the insurance, R.C., driving licence etc. to them and they assured the complainant through its Director Ms. Anuradha Gard that they would intimate the opposite party No.1. (insurance company within 24 hours). On 30.11.2017 i.e. after six days of the accident, Ms. Kamini Sharma Service Advisor (working with opposite party No.2), sent the email to opposite party No.1, requesting for deputing the surveyor with regard to the inspection of the said vehicle. On 09.01.2018 Mr. Vaibha Sharma, Asstt. Manager, Body Shop (working with opposite party No.1), sent the e-mail to Mr. Niranjan Lal, Surveyor (appointed by opposite party No.1) and sought his approval for replacement of the framework/underpart of the said vehicle i.e chassis. On 29.01.2018, the complainant through its Director Ms. Anuradha Grg personally met Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Asstt. Manager, Body Shop, (working with opposite party No.2) and urged him that in the absence of the said vehicle, she alongwith another Director Mr. Vindod Garg had to hire taxi for the daily routine works and meetings relating to the company affairs, and further requested him to repair the vehicle within one month. On 29.01.2018 Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Asstt. Manager, Body Shop, (working with opposite party No.2) intimated the Director Mr. Vinod Garg through e-mail averring that Mr. Niranjan Lal, Insurance Surveyor, (working with opposite party No.1) had given approval for replacement of chassis of the said vehicle on today and further stated that as he ordered the part, the vehicle would be repaired as soon as possible. On 26.03.2018 the bill of Rs.9,28,810/- was prepared by opposite party No.2 regarding the said vehicle. But to the utter surprise the vehicle was not repaired nor handed over to the complainant. On 21.04.2018 upon the request of the opposite party No.2, the complainant through its Director Mr. Vinod Garg submitted an affidavit, stating therein that no injury was caused to any person in the said accident nor any third party claim was arisen in the said case. On 29.05.2018, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma,Asstt. Manager, Body Shop, (working with opposite party No.2) again intimated Mr. Niranjan Lal Surveyor, (appointed by opposite party No.1) averring that he reminded him for 3rd time that the vehicle clarification was still pending due to which the customer (i.e complainant) was also annoyed for the service. He further requested him to inspect and sent the surveyor assessment report. On 23.08.2018 the cash amount of Rs.63,000/- was paid by the complainant through its Director Ms. Anuradha Garg to the opposite party No.2 against the salvage expenses regarding the said vehicle. The complainant sent legal notice dated 14.06.2019 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay Rs.2,00,000/- expenses for hiring taxi incurred by the complainant trough its Directors from the period 01.03.2018 to 31.07.2018.
b) pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on receipt of the damage claim of the vehicle No. HR-51-AY-7979 from opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 appointed N.L.Sharma and Associates, Consulting Engineering, valuer, Surveyor and Loss assessor for investigation of the claim of the complainant as well as for the assessment of loss and initially the estimate was provided to the surveyor on the basis of which he processed the claim and inspected the vehicle and also made assessment of loss however later on supplementary estimate was provided to the surveyor at a very late stage, which was also considered and after obtaining approval from the insurance company, the same was allowed by the surveyor. Some parts were not available with opposite party No.2 for which opposite party No.2 placed the order and after receiving the part, opposite party No.2 repaired the vehicle. Earlier GST No. of the company was not mentioned in the invoice issued by opposite party No.2, resultantly delivery order was issued by the insurance company without calculating GST thereafter the complainant by way of affidavit dated 26./06.2018 given undertaking by way of declaration that they shall not claim GST of bill vide GSTIN NO. 06AADCT1023C1Z3 & CIN No. U51502DL202008PTC1 from United India Insurance Company Limited in future and further that they had no objection if the GST amount would be given to opposite party No.2 by the insurance company. Thereafter delivery order was revised and calculated with GST and the claim was approved for Rs.8,50,400/- and was released towards the reimbursement of the damaged caused to the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that relevant documents in respect of damage vehicle Toyota Fortuner NO. HR51AY7979 where handed over to the opposite party No. 2 after getting approval from the complainant for taking necessary steps for getting vehicle repaired as well as insurance company to be intimated were admitted to be correct. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– United India Insurance & another with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.2,00,000/- expenses for hiring taxi incurred by the complainant trough its Directors from the period 01.03.2018 to 31.07.2018. b) pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW!/X – affidavit of Vinod Garg S/o late Shri Raj Kumar Garg , Director, M/s. Vaibhav Advertising Agency Pvt. Ltd., R/o House No. 631, Sector-21C, Faridabad. Mark A - Motor Insurance – Private Cr Package Policy Schedule , mark – B – email, Mark-C – email,, Mark-D – email, Mark-F – email, Ex.CW1/1 – bill dated 26.3.2018, Ex.CW1/2 - receipt,, Ex.CW1/3 – legal notice, Ex.CW1/4 to 5- postal receipts, Ex.CW1/6 – reply dated 02.07.2019,, Mark-G – track consignment.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Ankit Bhadana, Administrative Officer, M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd D.O-10, SCO-106, 2nd floor, Sector-16, Faridabad. , Ex.R-2 – Motor Survey Report, Ex.R-3 – Affidavit,, Ex.R-4 – reply dated 02.07.2019.
As per evidence of opposite party No.1 Ex.RW2/ A – affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Sharma S/o Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, Body Shop Manager, Thirty Six Toyota, 14/7, Mile Stone, Main Mathura road, Sector-31, Faridabad, Ex.RW2/1 – Estimate, Ex.RW2/2 – email, Ex.RW2/3 – email,, Ex.CE2/4 – email, Ex.RW2/5 - -email, Ex.RW2/6 – email dated May 07,2018 regarding approval of Rs.6,67,800/-, Ex.RW2/7 – email dated 13.12.2018,
7. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.2,00,000/- expenses for hiring taxi incurred by the complainant trough its Directors from the period 01.03.2018 to 31.07.2018. b)pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay
Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has tendaered Invoice No.9 dated December 31,2017 vide Ex.C1 , Ex.C-2 – inovice NO. 10 dated January 31,2018, Ex.C-3 – invoice No. 12 dated February 28,2018, Ex. C4 – invoice No. 13 dated March 31, 2018, Ex.C-5 – invoice dated 12 dated April 30, 2018, Ex.C-6 – invoice No. 16 dated 31.05.2018, Ex.C-7 – invoice No. 17 dated June 30, 2018, Ex.C-8 – invoice No. 18 dated July 21,2018
8. After going through the invoices of the expenses of the Director of the company i.e.
Sl. No Invoice No. Date Favour of
1. 9 December 31, 2017 Mahesh Sharma
2. 10 January 31,2018 Mahesh Sharma
3. 12 February 28,2018 Mahesh Sharma
4. 13 March 31, 2018 Mahesh Sharma
5. 12 April 30, 2018 Mahesh Sharma
6. 16 May 31,2018 Mahesh Sharma
7. 17 June 30,2018 Mahesh Sharma
8. 18 July 21,2018 Mahesh Sharma
This shows these documents are fabricated and after thought of the counsel for the complainant. No doubt, the vehicle in question was standing position with the authorized dealer due to non availability of the spare parts of the vehicle in question almost 9 months,
9. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed only with the compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum from both of the parties, jointly & severally. There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 17.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
