Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 257.
Instituted on : 27.05.2019.
Decided on : 15.02.2021.
Sandeep Kumar, age 35 years son of Shri Azad Singh, resident of House No.1009, Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Jawahar Market, Model Town, Near D-Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- M/s Jagmohan Motors, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.K.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Malik, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of Car bearing registration No.HR12AE-6017 and the same was insured with opposite party no.1, vide policy no.215700/31/2019/116128 for the period 3.8.2018 to 2.8.2019 and the said policy was zero debt policy and same was purchased through Maruti vehicle insurance. The above said vehicle met with an accident in the month of February, 2019. The complainant had visited Maruti Service & repair centre and opposite party No.1 was duly informed by complainant and a claim of Rs.14760/- was assessed by the surveyor and a bill dated 26.02.2019 of Rs.14760/- was generated in the name of opposite party but the opposite party did not pay the same and the complainant had to pay the said amount to get his vehicle after repair on 26.02.2019. The act of opposite party of not disbursing the claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,760/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its due till the actual disbursement and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the opposite party no.1 deputed a surveyor namely, Sunny Goyal to assess loss of vehicle no.HR12AE-6070 and he assessed the net loss of Rs.13780/- as the vehicle is under cover zero debt policy and loss was assessed accordingly. The opposite party tied up with the Maruti. So, the amount of Rs.13,455/- was paid on 5.4.2019 to Jagmohan Motors, Rohtak as per terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the claim is not maintainable against the OP no.1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. OP no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant brought the accidental vehicle in the garage of respondent no.2, the vehicle was repaired by the respondent no.2 as desired by the complainant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.14,760/- to the respondent no.2 in regard to repair of the vehicle done by the respondent no.1 and a proper receipt was given to the complainant by the respondent no.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.8.2020. Ld. counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 4.1.2021. Ld. Counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document Ex.R2/1 and close his evidence on dated 14.12.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. The present complaint was filed by the complainant against the Oriental insurance company and lateron an amended title was placed on record by the complainant counsel on dated 04.11.2019 and M/s Jagmohan Motors Rohtak has been impleaded as respondent no.2. In fact the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on dated 08.02.2019 and same was repaired by respondent no.2 on dated 26.04.2019. There is a tie up between respondent no.1 & 2 and this fact has been admitted in the affidavit filed by Sh.P.S.Dissodia, Senior Divisional Manager, OIC Ltd. in his affidavit Ex.R1 in para no.5. As per receipt Ex.C3, the vehicle of the complainant was handed over to the complainant by the respondent no.2 on dated 26.02.2019 after receiving an amount of Rs.14760/-. After that an amount of Rs.13455/- has been credited in the account of Jagmohan Motors by the respondent no.1 on dated 05.04.2019. This fact has also been stated in affidavit Ex.R1 of the Divisional Manager of OIC Insurance Company Ltd.. Now the main contention of the complainant is that he purchased a zero dep. policy and repair amount paid by the insurance company to the respondent no.2 as per terms and conditions of the policy but the insurance company failed to pay the repair amount i.e. Rs.14760/- to the respondent no.2 well within time and there is deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. He further argued that the amount has been credited in the account of respondent no.2 and the same should be paid by the respondent no.2 to the complainant immediately without any delay but till date the amount has not been paid by the respondent no.2 to the complainant. On behalf of the respondent no.2, it has been submitted that they tried to pay an amount of Rs.13455/- to the complainant on dated 23.07.2019 through cheque. But, this fact is missing in the affidavit and written statement of opposite party No.2. The respondent no.2 has not placed on record any affidavit or document to prove that they have issued a cheque on dated 23.07.2019 to the complainant or the same has been dispatched on the address of complainant through courier or registered post. Meaning thereby the respondent tno.2 had not paid the repair amount received from the insurance company to the complainant till date. But at the time of arguments, they offered a cheque amounting to Rs.13455/- to the complainant but the complainant denied to receive the same at this belated stage. The complainant has a zero dept policy and the amount should have been paid by the insurance company to the repairer well within time or at the time of repair of the vehicle.
7. After perusal of documents and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that somehow there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.1 as they have not paid the assessed amount to the respondent no.2 well within time. In fact, vehicle has been repaired on 26.02.2014 and amount of Rs.13453/- has been paid by the insurance company belatedly on 05.04.2019 to the opposite party No.2. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.13455/-(Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred and fifty five only) received by them from the insurance company on dated 05.04.2019 and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.1 i.e. shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.50/- per day till its realization to the complainant.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
