State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Sonepat Through ... vs 1. Bhagwan Mahavir College Of Education ... on 13 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.579 & 600 of 2011 Date of Institution: 29.04.2011 & 03.05.2011 Date of Decision: 13.08.2012 Appeal No.579 of 2011 The New India Assurance Sonepat through Sh. K.B. Bindal, Manager, mited, Regional Office, S.C.O. No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh duly constituted attorney. Appellant (OP-1) Versus 1. Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education near Railway Crossing Jagdishpur Tehsil and District Sonepat through Satbir Jain, Trustee. Respondent (Complainant) 2. The Orian Automobiles Ltd., Mehrauli Road, Opposite Kaliadi Hospital near Government College, Gurgaon (Haryana) Respondent (OP-2) For the Parties: Shri R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Vig, Advocate for respondent No.2. Appeal No.600 of 2011 The Orian Automobiles Ltd., Mehrauli Road, Opposite Kaliadi Hospital near Government College, Gurgaon (Haryana) Appellant (OP-2) Versus 1. Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education near Railway Crossing Jagdishpur Tehsil and District Sonepat through Satbir Jain, Trustee. Respondent (Complainant) 2. The New India Assurance Sonepat through Sh. K.B. Bindal, Manager, mited, Regional Office, S.C.O. No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh duly constituted attorney. Respondent (OP-1) For the Parties: Shri Sanjay Vig, Advocate for appellant. Shri Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These two appeals bearing No.579/2011 and 600/2011 have arisen out of the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat in complaint No.319/2010.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that Verna Car bearing registration No.HR10K/8489 of the complainant Bhagwan Mahavir College of Education was insured with the opposite party No.1 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period 17.8.2009 to 16.08.2010. The car met with an accident on 17.8.2009 in the area of Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon. FIR No.369 dated 17.8.2009 was lodged under Section 279,337,427 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon. On being informed, the surveyor and loss assessor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. The vehicle was shifted to the opposite party No.2 The Orian Automobiles Ltd. Mehrauli Road, Kaliadi Hospital near Government College, Gurgaon for repairs. The complainant submitted claim with the opposite party No.1.
The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that on 01.12.2009 , the opposite party No.2 had raised a demand of rupees two lacs in advance from the complainant and the complainant under intimation to the opposite party No.1 and under protest had deposited the said amount vide receipt No.472. The opposite party No.2 again demanded a sum of Rs.4,66,845/- plus Rs.5878/- from the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to settle his claim and to get released its vehicle but neither the opposite party No.1 settled its claim nor the opposite party No.2 released the car. Thus, alleging it as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement stated that the surveyor and loss assessor of the Company had assessed the damage of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.2,62,160/-. But the complainant had not furnished the required documents i.e. cash receipts with respect to the repairs of its car and NCB information with respect to earlier insurance policies and for that reason the claim of the complainant could not be settled. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
Opposite Party No.2 in its separate written statement stated that the complainant had deposited rupees two lacs only whereas the vehicle required heavy amount for its repairs and thus there was no deficiency in service on its part.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties, given below:-
..So, we find force in the present case as the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy and accordingly, following relief is granted to the complainant with the directions to the respondent No.1 & 2:-
i) The respondent No.2 is directed to hand over the salvage of vehicle No.HR10K/8489 to the complainant and after receipt of the same from respondent No.2, the complainant will deposit the salvage of vehicle No.HR10K/8489 with the respondent No.1 insurance company.
ii) The complainant is also directed to submit the NCB certificate with the respondent No.1 insurance company.
iii) The respondent No.1 insurance company is further directed to make the total payment of Rs.472723/-
(Rs.4,66,845 plus Rs.5878) in respect of the damaged vehicle No.HR10K/8489 and out of this amount, the respondent No.1 insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs.2,72,723/- to the respondent No.2 and shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant.
iv) The respondent No.2 is also directed to hand over the vehicle i.e. Verna car No.HR10K/8489 to Shri Satbir Jain in working condition since the respondent No.1 insurance company has been directed to make the balance amount of Rs.2,72,723/- to respondent No.2 as respondent No.2 has already received Rs.2 lacs from the complainant and this fact is also not disputed by the respondent No.2. It is also directed to the respondent No.2 not to recover any parking charges from the complainant.
Further since the complainant has been able to prove that he has hired the taxi and has paid an amount of Rs.5,42,000/- w.e.f. 01.09.2009 to 01.01.2011 through cheques to M/s Suraj Travels, Geeta Bhawan, Sonepat. We have observed that the complainant has availed the services of private taxi only due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent No.1 and thus, respondent No.1 insurance company is liable and directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant which he has incurred on hiring the taxi and this fact is duly proved from the affidavit of Bijender Singh.
Further the respondent No.1 insurance company is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and further to pay Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) on account of litigation expenses.
The present complaint stands allowed and respondents No.1 is directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of this order. However, the respondent No.2 is directed to release the vehicle i.e. Verna car No.HR10K/8489 immediately to Shri Satbir Jain in working condition and without charging any parking charges. It is also directed to the respondent No.1 insurance company to make the payment to the complainant and to respondent No.2 as directed above in the preceding paras, otherwise, the respondent No.1 insurance company will further pay the taxi charges to the complainant for the said defaulted period.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal by way of filing these two separate appeals.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused both the case files.
In the instant case the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant is not disputed by the parties. It is also not disputed that the car was damaged in an accident during the period of insurance. The controversy between the parties is that the claim of the complainant was not settled whereas it had paid a sum of rupees two lacs in advance to the opposite party No.2 for repair of the car but when the opposite party No.2 further demanded a sum of Rs.4,66,845/- plus Rs.5878/- from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant to pay the insured amount. On the other hand the opposite party No.1 has denied the allegation of the complainant with the plea that the claim could not be settled as the complainant had not furnished the necessary documents i.e. cash memos with respect to the repair of its vehicle and NCB etc. The complainant has tendered sufficient evidence to the effect that a huge amount was incurred on the repair of the car from the opposite party No.2.
Thus, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a case where the complainant has been awarded compensation as per the damage of complainants vehicle. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in both these appeals, these are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,075/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.579/2011 and Rs.2,37,160/- deposited on 19.10.2011 in view of the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by this Commission, be refunded to the appellant-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original order/judgment be attached with appeal No.579/2011 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.600/2011.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 13.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member