Haryana

StateCommission

A/878/2018

HARDEEP SINGH SOKHEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK BASATIA

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.878 of 2018

                                                 Date of Institution: 13.07.2018

                                                               Date of Decision: 04.07.2023

 

Hardeep Singh Sokhey S/o Sh.Joginder Singh, R/o H.No. 410-R, Model town Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      The United India Insurance Company Limited, near Telephone Exchange Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2.      M/s Gurmukh Motor Garage near Lal Dwara Mandir Gate Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.

3.      Sh.Pankaj Goel surveyor and loss assessor H.No. 947, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Hardeep Singh Sokhey appellant in person.

                   Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   (Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 11.05.2022).

                   None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.878 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short  Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.451 of 2015, which was dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of Honda City car bearing registration No.HR-26BH-1751. This vehicle was insured with opposite party (OP)  No.1, which was valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016.  Unfortunately on 01.05.2015, the vehicle met with an accident. Following which an intimation was given to the insurance company. As per the advice of insurance company’s agent, complainant brought his vehicle in the workshop of OP No.2.  The loss to this car was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,21,400/- by the OP No.2 repairer.   Thereafter insurance company appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss.   The engine of the vehicle was damaged in the accident.  The OP No.2 repaired the vehicle and raised bill of Rs.15,730/- for spare parts and Rs.21,900/- for labour charges.  The engine of this car was repaired as per the direction of the surveyor.  OP No.3 re-inspected the vehicle and recommended for settling the claim for Rs.9240/- instead of actual expenses. Thereafter, the complainant noticed that engine oil of the car was very less and he got the vehicle checked from authorized service point of Honda car. He took the vehicle to M/s Kishiv Motors Private Limited, Ambala, who checked the vehicle and found that cracks in the oil chamber, engine block  and pan assembly oil was damaged.  He requested the OPs to get it  repaired but service Manager of M/s Kishiv Motors, Private Limited Ambala told that pan assembly was not replaced with new one. The cracks in the engine block and chamber had appeared during the previous accident and damaged parts were to be changed but somehow  or the other changed. The OPs had not changed the damaged parts of the vehicle  and had cheated the complainant.  He requested the OPs to change the defective parts, but all in vain. Faced with this situation, he got issued a legal notice to the OPs but they refused to rectify the damages.   Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence the complaint.

3.      OP No.1 in its written version raised objections regarding accruing cause of action,  maintainability of the complaint and locus standi etc. were also sought dismissal of the complaint. It was also submitted that complainant had already  received the claim of Rs.9540/- as assessed by the surveyor. The complainant has received his vehicle from repairer in a running and satisfied condition  in June, 2015, whereas the complainant got inspected his vehicle from M/s Kishiv Motor Private Limited, Ambala after four months i.e. October 2015.  There was every possibility of damage to the engine due to some other incident not reported by complainant.  As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was not entitled for any relief. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 04.04.2016.

4.      OP No.3 filed separate written statement.  It was submitted that after accident, the insurance company had deputed the surveyor, who assessed the loss of Rs.9540/- as well. The complainant was present at the time of survey and he was satisfied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 11.06.2018.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      These arguments were advanced by Sh.Hardeep Singh Sokhey appellant in person as well as Sh.Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties was also properly perused and examined.

8.      Appellant in person vehemently  argued that engine block, engine chamber, pan assembly oil, oil pump, oil stainer and other internal parts of the engine like piston rings, crank shaft etc. of his car were actually damaged due to impact of accident on 01.05.2015 and during repair the  M seal was affixed on the engine compartment  and cracks on the engine were hidden by the repairer at the instance of surveyor and this all was disclosed by Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd.   Appellant prayed that the vehicle be repaired free of costs.

9.      Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that  complainant had already  received his claim of Rs.9540/- as assessed by the surveyor. The complainant has also received his vehicle from repairer in a satisfied condition  in June, 2015, whereas the complainant got inspected his vehicle from M/s Kishiv Motor Private Limited, Ambala after four months i.e. October 2015.  There is every possibility of damage of engine due to some other reason.  As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was not entitled for any relief.

10.    It is not disputed that after accident, the vehicle was repaired and handed over to the complainant in running condition that too when appellant expressed his complete satisfaction only. The argument of the complainant that vehicle was received in damaged condition cannot be  accepted because the record of the file reveals that complainant has received his vehicle from repairer in a properly running and satisfied condition  in June, 2015, whereas complainant got inspected his vehicle from M/s Kishiv Motor Private Limited, Ambala after four months i.e. October 2015.   If the engine of the car was in damaged condition, why complainant remained silent for four months after repair of the vehicle.

11.     There is another aspect that  M-seal around the engine of the car did not prove the damages to the internal parts of the vehicle.   Since, the complainant has already received the assessed amount, infact the story put forth by complainant the repairer has applied only the M-seal on the cracked engine unit is in itself  unbelievable. How engine  oil could remain  in the cracked engine unit simply with the help of a common M-seal. It is quite surprising why complainant did not notice any leakage of engine oil on the floor where he must be  parking his vehicle. How complainant took four months to notice loss of engine oil in his car. Added thereto even if we presume complainant to be true and engine unit was not repaired then how the internal parts of this unit could found to be damaged also.  This could have happened only in some other mishap. The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The learned District Commission committed no illegality while passing the order dated 11.06.2018.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

12.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.              File be consigned to record room.

 

July   4th 2023                                                           S.P.Sood                                                                                                                               Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.(Pvt. Secy.)