DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 412 of 2022.

 

1. Dr. Subhajit Dhar,

S/O. Sri Sankar Dhar,

Resident of Gandhighat Quarter Complex,

Type-3, Block-A, Agartala, 

Dist. West Tripura....................…....…...........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. United Insurance Company Limited, 

Represented by its Branch Manager, 

Divisional Office, GRS Tower,

1st Floor, RMS Chowmuhani,

P.S.-West Agartala, 

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001, 

Dist.-West Tripura. 

 

2. M/S. Panna Hyundai,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory(Managing Director),

NH-8 Road, Chanpur, Agartala, 

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799008, 

Dist.-West Tripura, …...............................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Abhijit Gon Chowdhury, 

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Prasenjit Saha,

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

1. Dr. Subhajit Dhar, herein after called the Complainant, has filed this complaint pleading inter alia that he purchased a Hyundai vehicle on 01/10/2021 from the O.P. No.2 and the vehicle was insured the O.P. No.1 and the nature of policy was NIL depreciation policy. 

2. On 23/12/2021 i.e. during the period of policy, the vehicle meet an accident and the vehicle was placed under O.P. No.2 for repairing. The O.P. No.2 initially submitted an estimate on 08/02/2022 for Rs.1,89,650.73/- in all. Subsequently, on 12/03/2022 submitted a supplementary estimate for Rs.6708.42/-. On 11/04/2022 the vehicle was ready to deliver and final bill was raised for Rs.1,97,977/- with direction to purchase one tyre for Rs.3,790/- which the Complainant purchased on 11/04/2022 but when the final bill was raised the amount was changed Rs.5846.62/- without consent of the Complainant. The painting of the vehicle was also done beyond of the knowledge of the Complainant for which the Respondent No.2 informed of amount of Rs. 84,247.28/- but final bill was raised for Rs.89,153.14/-. Similarly in the 1st estimate bill of Rs.1,08,340/- was raised but final bill was submitted of Rs.1,08,823.51/-. 

3. The Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,97,977/- + Rs.3,790/- = Rs.2,01,767/- to the Respondent and submitted a final bill to the Respondent No.1 for reimbursement. But Respondent No.1 i.e. the Insurance Company informed that the Complainant is not entitled to Rs.3,790/- the cost of tyre as it was not included in the final bill of Respondent No.2. Hence, on 12/05/2022 the Respondent No.1 paid Rs.1,70,0274/- out of Rs.2,01,767/- i.e. refused to pay Rs.31,473/- which is the crux of the dispute.  The complainant claim this amount along with compensation for deficiency in service.   

4. The O.P. No.1 in Para No.3 & 5 of the written objection admitted that the policy of Insurance with NIL depreciation but pleaded that O.P. No.1 did not receive any revised estimate as submitted by O.P. No.2 on paint material. As such revised estimate on paint material is not acceptable. Likewise estimate on while assay was for Rs.848.50/- but the surveyor assesd a different amount. Meaning thereby a dispute in between the estimate submitted by the O.P. No.2 and the estimate of the surveyor ultimately  the O.P. No.1 paid Rs.170294/- out of Rs.201767/-. Rather, an amount of Rs.197977/- was paid by the Complainant.  

5. On the basis of the dispute the following points are taken up  for discussion and decision:

    (i). Whether the O.P. No.1 has paid the actual repairing cost as per estimate of O.P. No.2?   

      (ii).  Whether the Complainant is entitled to any further amount including compensation of O.P. No.1?    

    (iii). Whether the O.P. No.2 claim any excess amount by way of repairing charge and cost of parts? 

6. All the points are taken up together for discussion and decision. 

7.  As the respective cases of the parties discussed above, the Complainant has not proved any cash memo i.e. Rs.201767/- was paid to the O.P. No.2. Further, since surveyor was appointed by the O.P. No.2 and submitted survey report time to time and hence knowledge of the Complainant regarding charge of estimate by the O.P. No.2 can not be denied by the Complainant. Further price of parts are subject to escalation of price by the Hyundai Company for which the O.P. No.2 can not be held responsible. 

8. As such the dispute in between the estimate submitted by the O.P. No.2 and estimate of the surveyor. Surveyor is appointed and paid by the Insurance Company who is not supposed to estimate the actual cost required for repairing. Rather, the items which would be required for repairing the vehicle. 

9. O.P. No.1 paid to the Complainant sum of Rs.170294/- i.e. less Rs.31473/- which was actual paid to the Complainant and it is the crux of the dispute. 

10. As per O.P. No.2 the Complainant paid actual amount of Rs.197977 to the O.P. No.2. Hence, considering fact that the Complainant purchased NIL depreciation policy of Insurance and also considering the revised estimate and price of escalation by the Hyundai Company, the O.P. No.1 is required to pay the full amount of Rs.197977/-. As such Rs.197977/-  - Rs. 170294/-(Actually paid by the Complainant to the O.P. No.2 ) = Rs.27683/- which the O.P., Insurance Company is liable to pay to the Complainant. 

      All the points are decided accordingly.       

11. In the result the O.P., Insurance Company shall pay Rs.27683/- to the Complainant with interest @7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of the case i.e. 29/11/2022 till the date of actual payment with a further sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation which is inclusive of litigation cost. 

          The case stands disposed off.  

         Supply a certified copy of this final order to both the parties free of cost.                    

 Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.