Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/846/2012

Kuldeep Mittal S/o Om Parkash Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Gupta

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 846 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 08.08.2012     

                                                                                    Date of decision: 01.06.2017

 

Kuldeep Mittal son of Shri Om Parkash Mittal, resident of House No.1089, Dagan Street, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                   …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 148-150 Sector -8 Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Sanghi Brother (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Indore Highway, Post Nayapura, Bhopal (MP) through its Authorized Signatory. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

Present:            Shri Anil Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri Parmod Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        None for OP No.2

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle Tata ACS, bearing Registration No.HR58A-2514, Model 2010, which was comprehensively insured with the OP No.1 insured with the OP No.1 Insurance company vide policy No.05200031110110001484, with effect from 18.06.2011 to 17.06.2012. When on 28.04.2012 in the morning the driver of the complainant after loading household goods in the vehicle in question from Jagadhri to unloaded the same at Bhopal (MP) and vehicle in question reached near Indore, the vehicle struck with a tree standing near the road and due to that vehicle in question was badly damaged but no injury was received by the driver. On intimation of the accident, the complainant intimated the OP No.1 Insurance company and the vehicle was taken to Ramesh Agency, Bhopal as per instruction of the OP No.1. Thereafter, on 08.05.2012, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP No.2 against receipt No.SanBho-BP1-RCT-1213-000034 dated 08.05.2012 as advance money against the repair of the vehicle in question. The OP No.2 who had repaired the said vehicle further demanded Rs.19490/- which was paid by the complainant on 16.06.2012. After that, the OP No.2 called the complainant for delivery of vehicle but on seeing the condition of the vehicle in question, it was found that the OP No.2 has not properly repaired the vehicle, as they have welded the chassis of the vehicle after cutting the same from many places and when the complainant objected the same and requested either to repair the vehicle properly  or to change a chassis of the same, but the OP No.2  at the instance of OP No.1 forcibly obtained the signatures of the complainant and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 16.06.2012. The OP No.2 has not repaired the vehicle in question properly and even the cabin and chassis of the vehicle is bend from many places, and the OP No.1 has also refused to replace the chassis of the vehicle, due to which the vehicle is not able to ply properly. Hence, the OPs have constituted the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs either to change the chassis or replace the vehicle with new one and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 i.e. United India Insurance Company filed its written statement. Firstly, the OP No.1 Insurance Company denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint in its written statement as the particulars of the claim lodged with the Insurance company was not provided by the complainant but lateron by way of rejoinder of the written statement, OP No.1 Insurance company admitted that after getting the complaint number, the record is checked and it is stated that the said claim was reported and Shri Santosh Sharma, Surveyor and his associates Bhopal was appointed, who gave his fact finding and survey report dated 15.06.2012 assessing the loss and according to the report of said surveyor, the claim stands settled and the payment of Rs.59,858/- stands released to the OP No.2 i.e. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited Bhopal vide cheque No.3693 dated 14.09.2012. So the contents raised by the complainant is not correct rest contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stands taken in the preliminary objection of the written statement.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, as the vehicle was repaired by the OP No.2 in the State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) so this forum has  no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and on merit all the contents of the complaint were denied for wrong and for want of knowledge. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.2.

5.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure C-X, photocopy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-1, photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure C-2, photocopy of driving licence of the driver as Annexure C-3, photocopy of miscellaneous receipt of Rs.200/- as Annexure C-4, photocopy of receipt of Rs.10,000/- dated 08.05.2012 as Annexure C-5, photographs of the vehicle as Annexure C-6 to C-12, photocopy of repair bill issued by OP No.2 Sanghi Brothers dated 16.06.2012 as Annexure C-13 and also tendered evidence report of local commissioner as Annexure C-14 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri Ajay Sareen, Authorised Signatory, UIIC as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Shri Santosh Sharma, Surveyor and loss assessor, Bhopal as Annexure R-1, photocopy of intimation for lodging claim as Annexure R-2, photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure R-3, photocopy of surveyor report dated 15.06.2012 as Annexure R-4, photocopy of claim approval note as Annexure R-5, photocopy of disbursement voucher of amount Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     None appeared on behalf of OP No.2 nor any evidence was produced on behalf of OP No.2 despite last opportunity, so the evidence of the OP No.2 was closed by Court order dated 26.07.2016.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

9.                     The only version of the complainant is that OP No.2 has not repaired the vehicle in question properly as the chassis of the vehicle has  not been properly repaired and even the cabin and chassis of the vehicle was having bend from many places, upon which the complainant asked the OPs to replace the chassis of the vehicle in question or to replace the vehicle with new one but the OPs flatly refused to do the same, which constitutes the deficiency in service in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards photographs  of the vehicle in question (Annexure C-6 to C-12) and reapir bills (Annexure C-13) and argued that despite charging huge amount from the complainant, the OP No.2 has not repaired the vehicle properly. Lastly, learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the report of Local Commissioner dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure C-14) and argued that the Local Commissioner was also of the opinion that the vehicle in question was not properly repaired and is risky to drive the same on the road and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as “General Motors India Private Limited and Another Vs. Maj. General (Retd.) B.S. Suhag, CPJ 2009(1) P-548” and another case law titled as “M/s SAS Motors Ltd. Vs. Anant Haridas Choudhari , 2013(4) CLT, P-96”.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 Shri Parmod Gupta, argued at length that a false and manipulated complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate and extract money from the OP No.1 Insurance Company where as no truth is attached with the allegation leveled in the complaint. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 draws our attention towards the Surveyor and Loss Assessor report dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure R-4) and argued that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has rightly and correctly assessed the loss suffered by the complainant  on account of damaged of the vehicle in question and according to the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Report, the OP No.1 Insurance Company had already paid the amount of Rs.59,858/- to the OP No.2 from which the complainant got repaired the vehicle in question. Further, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 have no concern whatsoever with the remaining contents of the complaint i.e. OP No.2 has not repaired the vehicle in question properly and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.                   No argument was advanced on behalf of OP No.2 as none appeared on behalf of OP No.2.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. We have gone through the entire file and evidence placed on file but the complainant has totally failed to prove that the OP No.2 has not repaired the vehicle in question properly. The entire case of the complainant is based on only Local Commissioner Report (Annexure C-14) but the report of the Local Commissioner has no weight-age in the eyes of law as this report has been issued in the absence of any representative of the OP No.2 who repaired the vehicle in question. Even prior to inspection the vehicle in question no notice was issued to the OP No.2. No affidavit of the Local Commissioner or any other expert/mechanic report has been placed on file to prove that the OP No.2 has not repaired the chassis of the vehicle in question properly. Although the complainant has placed on file some photographs (Annexure C-6 to C-12) of the vehicle in question but from these photographs it is also not evident that vehicle in question was not properly repaired by the OP No.2. On the other angle also when the vehicle in question was not properly repaired by the OP No.2 then why the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.19,490/- on 16.06.2012 as mentioned in the Para No.5 of the complaint. Moreover, as per version of the complainant himself he got repaired the vehicle in question in Madhya Pradesh from the OP No.2.

13.                   Further, it is not the case of the complainant that OP No.1 Insurance Company has not paid the claim amount assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor to the OP No.2 on behalf of complainant. Neither the complainant has challenged the Surveyor report in which an amount of Rs.59,858/- has been assessed by the Surveyor nor placed on file any cogent evidence to controvert the report of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The case law referred by the complainant is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 01.06.2017.

           

                                                                                 

                                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),                                     

                                                                                   PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                                   YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)           (S.C. SHARMA)

                        MEMBER                                            MEMBER