Ms. Pooja Enterprises
This is a discussion on Ms. Pooja Enterprises within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 12.03.2009 Appeal No. ...
- 09-02-2009, 12:00 PM #1
Ms. Pooja Enterprises
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 12.03.2009
Appeal No. FA-07/84
(Arising out of Order dated 08.12.06 passed by the District Consumer Forum, North, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Case No. 468/06)
Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant
Divisional Office-25, Through
G-8, Hauz Khas Market, Mr. G.L. Chawla,
New Delhi-110016. Advocate
Ms. Pooja Enterprises … Respondent
Through Partner Sachin Jain,
F-15/A, Jindal Complex,
Subhash Chowk, Delhi.
Justice J.D. Kapoor … President
Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. This appeal is against the order dated 08.12.06 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 49,428/- being the amount less reimbursed towards the damage to the vehicle in an accident and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the report of the surveyor wherein dozens of items were shown as intact in the various photographs taken by the surveyor and further that the original claim filed by the respondent before the appellant was Rs. 1,16,375.25 whereas in the complaint before the District Forum he inflated this amount to Rs. 1,36,326/-.
3. The factum of the accident is not in dispute. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum drew adverse inference from the fact that the photographs taken by the surveyors showing every item as intact, were not produced before the District Forum and withholding of such material piece of evidence, raises adverse inference.
4. We have perused the report of the surveyor under the title ‘Assessment’. The report is to the following effect :-
An estimate of M/s. Orion Automobiles(Delhi) P. Ltd. Dated 22.09.2005 for Rs. 65,958.75(parts) & Rs. 50,416.50(labour), totaling to Rs. 1,16,375.25 was submitted in support of above claim which was minutely scrutinized and after fair discussion with the repairer, the assessment of loss is arrived as under :-
S.No. Description of part Estimated Assessed Net Amount Damage/Remarks
1. Front wind screen glass
(Not related with cause) 6,000.00 NA/OLD Old Damaged
Add VAT @ 12.50% & 12.50% 750.00 0.00
6,750.00 0.00 0.00
2. Front bumper rail 3,500.00 2,150.00 Bent
3. Left Fender 2,600.00 RA Pressed& Deshaped
4. Cross Member 12,000.00 12,554.00 Bent
5. Lower Arm LS 1,907.00 1,907.00 Bent
6. Axle LS 8,000.00 NA Intact
7. LHS Apron Leg 5,000.00 RA Bent
8. Cowl Top 4,000.00 NA Intact
9. Rear Susp.Arm Upper
+Lower 2,800.00 1,163.00 Bent
10.Wheel Rim 3 pc 4,000.00 NA Intact
11.AC Condenser 10,000.00 7,612.00 Bent, Cut
12.Rear Axle 6,000.00 NA Intact
13.Left Shocker 2,054.00 NA Intact
14.Knuckle 2,000.00 NA Intact
15.Left Shocker IT 3,000.00 2,046.00 Bent
16. Left Lateral Arm 1,850.00 1,555.00 Bent
17.Petrol Tank 8,000.00 NA Intact
18.Clutch Housing(Not 6,102.00 6,102.00 Broken
Add VAT @ 12.50% & 12.50% 10,351.63 4,386.13
Less Dep. @ 15.00% 39,475.13
93,164.63 33,553.86 33,553.86
5. Photographs have been produced by the appellant and the report of the surveyor is of an extensive details. Merely because the photographs were not produced, does not mean that the surveyor report should have been brushed aside. However, there was no detailed report of the repair in respect of the estimate prepared by him and those items that have been shown intact, might have been shown damaged. Furthermore, the respondent had accepted the amount of cheques offered by the appellant in respect of his claims.
6. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances persuade us to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
7. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
10. Announced on 12th day of March, 2009.
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-07-2009, 01:52 PM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2009, 11:30 AM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2009, 09:32 AM
- By Tanu in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 09:05 AM
- By firstname.lastname@example.org in forum Auto RickshawReplies: 0Last Post: 08-27-2009, 11:21 AM