Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is owner of a traveler T-1 manufactured by Force Motors Ltd. having Engine No. D67038797 Chassis No. MC1E4DMA3LP039760, having its registration No. PB01-C-5329 which was hypothecated by Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd. The complainant has obtained its permit and completed all its documents and is using the above said vehicle for transport of passengers from one place to another and from this small business, the complainant is earning livelihood to maintain himself and his family. The opposite party No. 1 is the head office of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and opposite party No. 2 is the Branch office of opposite party No. 1 which is carrying on its business at Tarn Taran and the opposite party No. 3 is the authorized agency of Force Motors Ltd. which is duly authorized for sale service and repair of all type of vehicles manufactured by force motors Ltd. The above said vehicle of the complainant was a new purchased vehicle which was purchased from the opposite party No. 3 and it was also insured by the opposite party No. 1 through its agent which is having a small office in the premises of the opposite party No. 3. It was the first insurance of the newly purchased vehicle of the complainant and the said insurance was dep cap and cashless meaning thereby in case of any accident whole of the amount is to be paid by the insurance company to the agency. On 19.12.2020 at about 4.00 A.M. when the complainant was coming on road at Banga which leads to Amritsar suddenly a cow came in front of the vehicle and due to that accident the vehicle of the complainant got turned and the said vehicle got damaged. The complainant informed to the opposite party No. 1 as well as opposite party No. 2 on the same day. The complainant also informed the opposite party No. 3 regarding the accident. The opposite party No. 3 assured the complainant that his vehicle will be repaired within 15 days in case if complainant will bring his vehicle at the authorized agency which is opposite party No. 3. Thereafter, on their assurance, the complainant brought the damaged vehicle for its repair at the premises of the opposite party No. 3, thereafter, after few days the complainant went to the office of opposite party No. 3 for inquiring about the said vehicle but to his utter surprise the opposite party No. 3 does not even started the repair of the above said vehicle of the complainant and when the complainant asked the reason for not repairing his vehicle, the opposite party No. 3 stated that their mechanics have been left due to lock down and they are searching for new mechanics. Later on after few days, the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No. 3 with a request that the vehicle of the complainant be repaired as early as possible as he has to pay the bank installments of Kotak Mohindra Bank by which the vehicle in question has been hypothecated but the opposite party No. 3 did not hear the request of the complainant and further stated that the surveyor of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 is not passing our initial bill and the said surveyor has not even given any consent for repairing the vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to meet the surveyor of the opposite parties NO. 1 and 2 and the surveyor told the complainant that he will visit the office of the opposite party No. 3 and also told the complainant to come present over there. After few days, the complainant was called at the office of opposite party NO. 2 and the surveyor of the opposite party No. 1 Mr. Khosla was also present at that time and when the complainant reached the office of the opposite party No. 3 to his utter surprise the complainant saw the surveyor and the manager of the opposite party No. 3 were quarreling by using abusive language against each other. After reaching there, the complainant was told by the surveyor of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that the opposite party No. 3 is committing fraud with the insurance company by making the bills of higher amount than the actual amount incurred in the repair of the vehicle in question and the manager of the opposite party No. 3 was saying that the bill submitted to the surveyor is the actual bill that has been generated after the repair of the above said vehicle in question and further Mr. Khosla surveyor of opposite party No.1 was openly stating that he is going to black list the agency of opposite party No. 3 and he is also going to lodge a complaint under Section 420 IPC against them. The surveyor further told the complainant that the actual costs that has been incurred in the repair of the vehicle of the complainant is Rs. 40,000/- but the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Karan Motors have generated a frivolous bill of more than Rs. 2 Lacs which cannot be paid by the insurance company. The complainant requested the surveyor of the opposite party No. 3 that the vehicle of the complainant be delivered to him after proper repairs as the dispute is in between the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 but the complainant is suffering financial loss due to the same but both the opposite parties did not hear any request of the complainant and till today the vehicle of the complainant is lying in the premises of the opposite party No. 3. The vehicle in question was the only source of income of the complainant and from that income the complainant was earning livelihood for himself as well as for his family to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- per month. Moreover, from the said income generated from the vehicle of the complainant he was also paying the installment of loan to Kotak Mohindra Bank but due to the act of negligence and carelessness the loan account of the complainant has become irregular and a penal interest and other charges has been levied upon by the Kotak Mohindra Bank. The complainant has prayed the following relieves.
- The opposite party may be directed to deliver the repair vehicle in question to the complainant immediately.
- It is further prayed that an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- as loss of livelihood and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of opposite parties on account of short come, deficient and negligent service may also be awarded to the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, Attested copy of registration copy of vehicle Ex. C-2, Attested copy of Adhar Card of the complainant Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of insurance of vehicle in question valid from 11.1.2020 to 10.1.2021 Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Schedule Caste certificate Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Job requisition dated 12.2.2021 Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of invoice No. 14 dated 21.12.2020 Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of insurance valid from 11.1.2021 to 10.1.2022 Ex. C-8.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts from this commission therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It has been perused that the insured has concealed the material facts meaning thereby has violated the terms and conditions of the policy covered under the insurance policy. The present complaint is not maintainable against the insurance company. The case of the insured has become infructuous as the insured has already been made the payment, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy it is clear that in the set of circumstances mentioned in preliminary objections it is clear that there is no cause of action and there is no question of deficiency and lapse on the part of the opposite party, hence the complainant is neither to get any relief nor entitled to get any compensation and interest as claimed. The loss was discussed with the insurer and repairer in detail. There has been no dispute as alleged between surveyor Mr. Khosla and Karan Motors. It was just there has been some disagreement between the Mr. Khosla and Karan motors regarding estimate given by Karan motors which was exhaustive and not the factual but at the same time the opposite parties paid the claim bill as per repairs and terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties nor there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the light of circumstances of the present case matter was reported and vehicle was inspected before and after the repairs and estimate was given and after going through all the repairs the claim was approved and paid. There has been delay on the part of the Karan motors to repair the vehicle as they were not having the skilled labour at that time as told by them and there is no delay or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The case was verified and after considering the facts and terms of insurance policy taken by the complainant claim was settled and paid and affidavit was given by the complainant to this effect. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit of D.M. Ex. OP1/A, affidavit of Surveyor Ex. OP2/A, Motor Survey Report Ex. OP1, satisfaction letter and Discharge Voucher Ex. OP2, Affidavit of Kawaljit Singh Ex. OP3, Insurance policy Ex. OP4.
3 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 3 but no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and consequently, the opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1, 2 and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
5 From the combined and harmonious readings of documents and pleadings is going to prove on record that the complainant is owner of traveler T-1 having Engine No. D67038797 Chassis No. MC1E4DMA3LP039760, bearing its registration No. PB01-C-5329 which was hypothecated by Kotak Mohindra Ltd. the said vehicle is insured with the opposite party No. 1 as such, the insurance is not disputed in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that the said vehicle was purchased from the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Karan Motors Amritsar. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 19.12.2020 at about 4 P.M. when the complainant was coming on road at Banga. Suddenly, a cow came in front of vehicle and said vehicle was got over turned and as such it was damaged. The information in this regard was given to the opposite party No. 2 on the same day. The complainant also informed to opposite party No. 3 regarding the said accident. The opposite party No. 3 thereupon assured that his vehicle will be repaired within 15 days. Thereafter, the said vehicle was taken to the premises of the opposite party No. 3 for necessary repairs. After few days, the complainant went to the opposite party No. 3 for inquiring the repair status of the vehicle but to utter surprise, the opposite party No. 3 did not start the repair work. When he inquired the reason, the opposite party No. 3 stated that due to lock down all the mechanics have been left and there is no mechanic to repair his vehicle.
6 The said vehicle was financed by Kotak Mohindra Bank and he was unable to pay the bank installments in time due to the act of the opposite party No. 3 and further opposite party No. 3 stated that surveyor of opposite party No. 1 and 2 is not passing the insurance bills and surveyor has also not given any consent for repairing the vehicle.
7 As per version of the complainant there was some dispute between the surveyor of opposite parties No. 1, 2 and opposite party No. 3 regarding the bills which was raised by opposite party No. 3 on higher side. As such there was delay in processing of the claim.
8 During the course of arguments counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 placed on record a claim disbursement statement which clearly proved that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have made the payment to the tune of Rs. 1,45,038/- to opposite party No. 3 vide transaction date 1.6.2021 as per terms and conditions of the policy.
9 Notice was sent to the opposite party No. 3 but opposite party No. 3 opted to remain absent as such, opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte. Whole of the evidence led by the complainant and allegations leveled by complainant against the opposite party No. 3 on the file goes unchallenged and unrebutted as Opposite Party No. 3 is proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant against the opposite party No. 3 be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 3 did not appear in this Commission in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Party No. 3 has nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against it by the complainant.
10 From the above foregoing reasons it is very much clear that opposite party No. 3 has received accidental vehicle of the complainant for its repair despite he himself has admitted that due to lock down there was no mechanic in his workshop, in this way he has caused financial loss to the complainant with malafide intention. From the claim disbursement statement it has been proved that the insurance company i.e. opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have made the payment to the tune of Rs. 1,45,038/- to the opposite party No. 3 on 1.6.2021 i.e. also after filing of the present complaint. However, the opposite party No. 3 despite receiving the payment has not delivered the vehicle to the complainant till date and said vehicle is still lying with the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant cannot ply his vehicle for earning his livelihood for a long time. Due to negligent act of the opposite party No. 3 the complainant has suffered mental as well as financial loss and this act of the opposite party No. 3 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 3
11 For the foregoing reasons we partly allowed the present complaint with costs against the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 is directed to hand over the vehicle of the complainant in running condition after making the necessary repair. The opposite party No. 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lacs only) for causing loss to the livelihood of the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party No. 3 unnecessarily for a long time as such the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 15,000 /- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 10,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Party No. 3 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the total awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realization. The present complaint against the opposite party No. 1 and 2 is dismissed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copy of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
19.06.2024
