Order No.  20  dt.  17/05/2018

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an old customer of o.p. no.1. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and for repairing of the same he went with the vehicle to o.p. no.1 who disclosed that for repairing of the said vehicle Rs.1 lakh is to be paid. The complainant agreed to the said proposal and agreed that he will pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh and the residuary amount will be paid by the insurance company. Subsequently the complainant became astonished to find that o.p. no.1 demanded an amount of Rs.1,63,277/- out of which Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- to be paid by the complainant and the rest is to be paid by insurance company. The proforma o.p. insurance company paid their share in respect of the repair cost of the said vehicle. Subsequently o.p. no.1 demanded a sum of Rs.4,32,929.58.  The complainant on receiving the letter from o.p. no.1 became astonished and filed this case with the allegation that the claim made by o.p. no.1 is a exorbitant one and the complainant is not in a position to meet the demand made by o.p. no.1. Since o.p. no.1 withheld the vehicle of the complainant, the complainant demanded an amount of Rs.16,37,368/- along with interest, since the complainant is not in a position to run the vehicle for his use, totaling an amount of Rs.19,32,094.24.

            The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant was never informed of by o.p. no.1 that for repairing of the said vehicle Rs.1 lakh is to be paid by the complainant, on the contrary, after assessment of the loss o.p. no.1 claimed the amount of Rs.1,63,277/-. In the mean time insurance company paid the amount to o.p. no.1, but the complainant did not pay the balance amount and did not take delivery of the vehicle. The o.p. no.1 thereafter made several correspondences with the complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle on payment of the balance amount, but the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. no.1.  Whenever o.p. no.1 found that the complainant was totally ignoring the request of o.p. no.1 sent a notice demanding an amount of Rs.4,32,929.58. At that time the complainant woke from his slumber and rushed to this Forum by filing this case making false allegation against o.p. no.1 that they have withheld the vehicle and for which the complainant could not use the same and damage has been claimed by the complainant. Since the case filed by the complainant is based on false statement and there is no ground whatsoever to give any relief to the complainant, thereby o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case. The o.p. no.1 has also prayed for direction upon the complainant to pay the balance amount due to o.p. no.1.

            The proforma o.p. insurance company contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that they have already paid the amount for which the complainant has no grievance against them, as such, the case is to be dismissed against them.

            In spite of receipt of notice o.p. nos.2 and 4 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.        

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant sent the vehicle to o.p. no.1 for repairing?
2. Whether o.p. no.1 gave the estimate to the complainant for repairing of the same?
3. Whether the complainant paid the amount of repairing charge after deducting the amount already paid by insurance company?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a old customer of o.p. no.1. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and for repairing of the same he went with the vehicle to o.p. no.1 who disclosed that for repairing of the said vehicle Rs.1 lakh is to be paid. The complainant agreed to the said proposal and agreed that he will pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh and the residuary amount will be paid by the insurance company. Subsequently the complainant became astonished to find that o.p. no.1 demanded an amount of Rs.1,63,277/- out of which Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- to be paid by the complainant and the rest is to be paid by insurance company. The proforma o.p. insurance company paid their share in respect of the repair cost of the said vehicle. Subsequently o.p. no.1 demanded a sum of Rs.4,32,929.58.  The complainant on receiving the letter from o.p. no.1 became astonished and filed this case with the allegation that the claim made by o.p. no.1 is a exorbitant one and the complainant is not in a position to meet the demand made by o.p. no.1. Since o.p. no.1 withheld the vehicle of the complainant, the complainant demanded an amount of Rs.16,37,368/- along with interest, since the complainant is not in a position to run the vehicle for his use, totaling an amount of Rs.19,32,094.24.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the complainant was never informed of by o.p. no.1 that for repairing of the said vehicle Rs.1 lakh is to be paid by the complainant. On the contrary, after assessment of the loss o.p. no.1 claimed the amount of Rs.1,63,277/-. In the mean time insurance company paid the amount to o.p. no.1, but the complainant did not pay the balance amount and did not take delivery of the vehicle. The o.p. no.1 thereafter made several correspondences with the complainant for taking delivery of the vehicle on payment of the balance amount, but the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. no.1.  Whenever o.p. no.1 found that the complainant was totally ignoring the request of o.p. no.1 sent a notice demanding an amount of Rs.4,32,929.58. At that time the complainant woke from his slumber and rushed to this Forum by filing this case making false allegation against o.p. no.1 that they have withheld the vehicle and for which the complainant could not use the same and damage has been claimed by the complainant. Since the case filed by the complainant is based on false statement and there is no ground whatsoever to give any relief to the complainant, thereby o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case. The o.p. no.1 has also prayed for direction upon the complainant to pay the balance amount due to o.p. no.1.

            Ld. lawyer for the proforma o.p. insurance company argued that they have already paid the amount for which the complainant has no grievance against them, as such, the case is to be dismissed against them.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with proforma insurance company i.e. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. at the material point of time. It is also found from the materials on record that survey was done by the surveyor and after doing the survey work the service centre was given the permission to dismantle the damaged portion which was duly informed to the complainant. It appears from the record that in order to ascertain the cost of the repairing o.p. no.1 informed the complainant that an amount was required to the tune of Rs.1,63,277/- for repairing of the said vehicle and after adjustment of the amount to be paid by insurance company the complainant will have to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- approximately. The complainant requested the o.p. no.1 to reduce the amount, but the said request was turned down. It is an admitted fact that insurance company paid an amount of Rs.82,384/- towards the claim made by the complainant from insurance company. The balance amount was required to be paid by the complainant. The complainant was informed on numerous occasions by o.p. no.1 for payment of the balance amount and to take delivery of the vehicle, but it is curious enough that the complainant neglected to give response to the request of o.p. no.1. In such manner while o.p. no.1 noticed that the vehicle was stranded in the garage for several years o.p. no.1 sent a letter demanding an amount of Rs.4,32,929.58 towards the parking charges from 1.8.13 to 16.5.14 @ Rs.350/- per day together with interest. The complainant thereafter rushed to this Forum making false allegations against o.p. no.1 which has also been reflected in the order passed by this Forum dt.23.2.17 whereby this Forum elaborately discussed as to what has the circumstances for which o.p. no.1 demanded the amount from the complainant vis-à-vis the negation of taking action by the complainant towards the payment of the dues to o.p. no.1. It appears from the record that the complainant in order to make out a false case against o.p. no.1 made false allegation without having any cogent reason whatsoever thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit, on the contrary, we hold that the complainant himself is at fault and he has not come with clean hands for which he will be entitled to get any relief as sought for by him. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not paid the repairing charges to o.p. no.1 and he is also given direction to pay the repairing charges as claimed by o.p. no.1, failing which o.p. no.1 will be entitled to get the said amount along with interest. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.361/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p. no.1 and the proforma o.p. insurance company and dismissed ex parte without cost against the other o.ps.

            The complainant is directed to pay the repairing charges claimed by o.p. no.1 along with interest @ 8% p.a. till the realization of the said amount.