Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/163/2022

SANJAY KUMAR JANGRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/163/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	08/12/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	28/03/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Sanjay Kumar Jangra son of Satbir Singh Jangra, Resident of CEN-322, Near Airport Chowk, Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]    New India Assurance Co. Limited, SCO 2939-40, Sector 22-D,Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

[2]    Charisma Goldwheels (P) Limited, Plot No.7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sanjay Kumar Jangra, Appellant in person.
		Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
		Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/907/2019, in the following terms:-

“10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/ Complainant that he is the registered owner of Hyundai i20 car bearing registration No.CH01-BN-3914, which was insured with Respondent/OP-1 vide insurance policy Annexure C-2 valid from 21.07.2018 to 20.07.2019. On 18.07.2019, the car in question was parked in the parking and the same was hit by some vehicle as a result of which its right side was damaged. The matter was reported to the police as a result of which DDR (Annexure C-3) was recorded.  It was alleged that at the time of handing over the vehicle in question for repair to Respondent/OP-2 on 19.07.2019, its fuel tank was 3/4^th, but, when it was taken back after repairs, the fuel tank was less than half. After repairs, Respondent/OP-2 demanded an amount of ₹20,146.14, but, Respondent/OP-1 paid only an amount of ₹16,123/- to Respondent/OP-2 on the ground that the damage to the bumper was not coinciding with the present accident.  The Appellant/complainant sent emails to Respondents/OPs as OP-2 was never asked to repaint entire bumper since the same was not covered under the insurance policy, but, the entire bumper was painted and the insurance company did not pay the claim for that. In this manner, Respondents/OPs mentally harassed the complainant by not paying the amount of ₹4,475/- for the front bumper and further the fuel tank was reduced to less than half by Respondent/OP-2. The complainant requested the OPs several times to admit the claim, but, to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.      The Respondent/OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its reply taking preliminary objections of maintainability and concealment of facts. On merits, while admitting the factum of insurance, it was pleaded that there were contradictions in the facts stated by the Appellant/ complainant at the time of lodging of the DDR with the police and the facts stated by him in the email correspondence with the Respondents/OPs as well as in the claim form. It was asserted that whatever damage to the car in question was found by the surveyor, the same was allowed. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

4.      Respondent/OP-2 filed its separate written reply and took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and also that the complainant has not disclosed the true facts. It was pleaded that when the Appellant/complainant was informed by the surveyor of Respondent/OP-1 that repainting job, being outside the ambit of repair, as per the Policy, and also that the Appellant/complainant has to bear the repair work of the bumper to the tune of ₹4,475 + taxes and he had agreed to pay the same from his own pocket, only then the repainting work was done by the answering OP especially when the Appellant/ complainant had given his consent through Annexure OP-2/3 i.e. CD/media.  On these ground, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the consumer Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

7.      We have heard the Appellant in person and Learned Counsel for the Respondents and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It was the case of the Respondent/OP-1 the Appellant/Complainant has stated contradictory facts regarding the accident of car by stating different versions in the claim application, in the email correspondence as well as in the DDR. Notwithstanding this, whatever was the genuine claim of the Appellant/complainant, the same was got assessed by a Surveyor and was accordingly allowed. On the contrary, Respondent/OP-2 held its nerve submitting that the bumper work was done by it only on the consent of the Appellant/complainant to will bear the expenses of the same. In order to straighten the things and set rest the controversy involved, the Ld. Lower Commission validly noted the e-mail conversation between the Appellant/complainant and Respondent/OP-1 (Annexure C-8), Claim Form submitted by the Appellant/Complainant (Annexure R-1/C) and the DDR (Annexure C-3) in para 7(ii) of its order. Perusal of the same would show that the story set-up by the Appellant/complainant in the e-mail were altogether contradicted by him in the Claim Form and further contradicted by him while reporting the matter to the police at the time of recording of DDR. All this makes the entire case of the Appellant/ complainant irresolute so far as damage to the front and rear bumper of the car in question and, therefore, his claim to that extent was rightly repudiated by Respondent/OP-1. While determining the case of Appellant/Complainant against Respondent/OP-2, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the same was without merit as it was the specific defence of Respondent/OP-2 that the bumper was repainted on the verbal request of the Appellant/complainant and nothing has been paid, despite of the fact that the said work was not covered under the insurance policy. Since the Appellant/Complainant failed to place on record any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to show that Respondent/OP-2 had used the fuel in the tank of car in question for its personal use, to our mind, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly recorded its finding qua that aspect.

 

11.      In nutshell, the Ld. Lower Commission while rejecting the claim of the Complainant has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded ibid by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

12.      No other point was urged, by the Parties.

 

13.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

16.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

28^th Mar., 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”