National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dr. Prithipal Singh Bhandari & Ors on 26 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 977 OF 2013 (From the order dated 23.11.2012 in First Appeal No. 332/2008 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) M/s Harpreet Motors (P) Limited 69/IA, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015. ... Petitioner/Opposite Party versus 1. Dr. Prithipal Singh Bhandari s/o Late Sh. Daulat Singh Bhandari J/153, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. also at New Bhandari Hospital, Majitha Road, Amritsar Respondent/Complainant
2. M/s National Insurance Co. Limited Batala Road Branch, Amritsar (through Manager)
3. M/s Ford India Limited S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu 603 204 Tamil Nadu (through Principal Officer)
4. M/s Ford Motor Company 1, American Road, Dearborn Road, Michigan 48126, USA
5. M/s Bhagat Ford Dr. Jagdish Singh Marg, Patiala
6. M/s A.B. Motors Private Limited Mohan Vihar, New Amritsar Gate, Amritsar.
Respondents/Opposite Parties REVISION PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2013 (From the order dated 23.11.2012 in First Appeal No. 332/2008 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) National Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its duly constituted attorney, Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
R.O. 1, Level 4, Tower II, Jeevan Bharati, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001.
... Petitioner/Opposite Party versus
1. Dr. Prithipal Singh Bhandari s/o Late Sh. Daulat Singh Bhandari J/153, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
also at New Bhandari Hospital, Majitha Road, Amritsar Respondent/Complainant
2. M/s Ford India Limited S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu 603 204 Tamil Nadu through its CEO-Chairman/Managing Director/ Principal Officer
3. M/s Ford Motor Company 1, American Road, Dearborn Road, Michigan 48126, USA through its Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Mr. William C. Ford Jr., through CEO of Ford India Ltd., S.P. Coil Post, Chengalpattu 603204.
4. M/s Harpreet Motors (P) Limited TSG Complex, 69/1-A, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar Crossing, New Delhi 110015 through its CEO/Chairman/ Managing Director/Principal Officer.
5. M/s Bhagat Ford through its Manager/Principal Officer Dr. Jagdish Singh Marg, Patiala
6. M/s A.B. Motors Private Limited Mohan Vihar, New Amritsar Gate, Amritsar.
through its Manager/Principal Officer Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS (RP NO. 977/ 2013) For Petitioner Mr. Vipin Singhania, Advocate Mr. Sunil Jha, Advocate For Respondent 1 Mr. Updip Singh, Advocate For Respondent 2 Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For Respondent 3 Mr. Vikram Dholakia, Advocate For Respondent 4 NEMO / Exparte For Respondent 5 & 6 Mr. Narender S. Yadav, Advocate APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS (RP NO. 2346 / 2013) For Petitioner Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For Respondent 1 Mr. Updip Singh, Advocate For Respondent 2 Mr. Vikram Dholakia, Advocate For Respondent 3 NEMO / Exparte For Respondent 4 Mr. Vipin Singhania, Advocate For Respondent 5 & 6 Mr. Narender S. Yadav, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 26th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 332/2008, Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari versus National Insurance Company & Ors. vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.02.2008 in consumer complaint no. 183/2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, dismissing the said consumer complaint, was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari got his 1997 model Ford Escort diesel car insured with National Insurance Company OP-1 for the period from 23.04.2002 to 12.04.2003 for ` 3,50,000/- plus `_10,000/- for sound system. OP-2 & 3, M/s. Ford India Limited and M/s. Ford Motor Company are the manufacturers of the car. OP-4 is the dealer of OP 2 in Delhi and carried out repairs of the said car. OP-5 & 6 also carried out the repair of the said car at some stage or the other. OP 7 is the surveyor and loss assessor appointed by the insurance company. The said car met with an accident with a trailer on 12.04.2003 near Phillaur (District Jalandhar) when the wife of the complainant was going from Amritsar to Delhi. The car was being driven by her driver Kumar Kamat. The accident resulted in damage to the vehicle as well as injuries to the passengers. A police report no. 30 dated 12.04.2003 was lodged with Police Station Phillaur. The matter was informed to OP-1 Insurance Company on telephone on 12.04.2003 and a written intimation was also sent on the next working day, i.e., 15.04.2013. The vehicle was shifted with the help of a tow-away vehicle to New Delhi to the workshop of OP-4, Harpreet Motors at New Delhi. The Regional Office of OP-1 Insurance Company at Delhi appointed M/s. K.R. Arora/ OP-7, surveyor to assess the loss. OP-4 Harpreet Motors carried out the repairs and raised bill of ` 2,43,858/- dated 31.05.2003. However, when the complainant went to the workshop of OP-4 to take the delivery, he found that lot of work was still pending. OP-4 gave him another estimate of ` 40,000/- for the balance work. After that, the complainant received letter dated 24.06.2003 from OP-4, intimating that the vehicle was ready for delivery and the bill amount of `_2,65,000/- approximately was to be paid. It has been alleged by the complainant that there were still defects in the vehicle for which the complainant wrote to OP-2 as well as OP-4 to get the vehicle properly repaired. Ultimately, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant by OP-4 on 25.07.2003 against final invoice of ` 2,78,500/-. The reading on the speedometer of the car at that time was 18996. The complainant also spent `_2,746/- for the repair of tyres/tubes and `_4,077/- was charged by the surveyor. It has been alleged that there were still complaints of leakage from oil seal and noise from lower side, for which the vehicle was sent to OP-5 for repairs. As narrated in the complaint, over the next few months, the vehicle had to be sent frequently for repairs and every time, some payment or the other was made to the repairers. The OP-4 gave him another estimate for repair for ` 32,629/-. On the other hand, the Insurance Company informed the complainant that they had passed the claim for ` 1,47,841/- against the original claim of `_2,78,500/-. The complainant has alleged that despite making complaints and numerous visits, the OPs were not able to repair the vehicle properly and give it to him in a fit working condition. On the other hand, the Insurance Company kept on insisting that the complainant should give acceptance for the amount of ` 1,47,841/- as full and final settlement and only then, the payment will be released. As per the complainant, the amount of ` 1,47,841/- was accepted from the Insurance Company, but nothing was stated about the full and final settlement. The consumer complaint in question was then filed before the District Forum, giving full details of the amounts spent by the complainant, saying that in total, a sum of ` 3,83,152/- had been spent for repairs. The complainant demanded that the insured value of `_3,60,000/- should be paid to him alongwith interest @18% p.a; and ` 5 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and the litigation cost should also be paid.
3. The District Forum vide their order dated 19.02.2008, concluded that the complainant had accepted the amount of `_1,47,841/- as full and final settlement of his claim and hence, they dismissed the complaint. An appeal was made against this order before the State Commission under section 15 of the Act, which was decided vide impugned order dated 23.11.2012. The State Commission observed that a sum of `_1,11,060/- was spent by the complainant for repairs from 26.07.2003 to 31.12.2004. Out of this amount, `_55,530/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant and the remaining amount shall be paid by OP-4 Harpreet Motors. The State Commission also observed that the surveyor had worked out the figure of `_1,47,841/- after accounting for 50% of depreciation on various items, but since the Insurance Company had placed an unreasonable condition of accepting the amount as full and final settlement only, the Insurance Company should pay ` 50,000/- to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The State Commission also awarded interest on the payable amount of compensation with effect from 2.9.2003 till realisation. A litigation cost of ` 5,000/- was also allowed to the complainant.
4. Against this order of the State Commission dated 23.11.2012, the present two revision petitions have been filed one by M/s. Harpreet Motors (P) Limited, OP-4 and the other by OP-1, National Insurance Co. Ltd. The other parties have been arrayed as respondents in both the revision petitions.
5. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for petitioner, M/s Harpreet Motors Pvt. Limited, stated that they had carried out proper repairs of the vehicle after which, the said vehicle was taken away by the complainant, after making payment of the repair bill. The vehicle had since travelled distance more than 1,00,000 kms., which shows that the petitioner had carried out proper repairs of the vehicle. The learned counsel also stated that the insurance company had paid the amount of `_1,47,841/- to the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim and the said money was received by the counsel for the complainant. They had not stated anywhere that the amount was received under protest. The learned counsel also stated that subsequent repairs carried out in the vehicle did not relate to damage during accident, rather they were related to the subsequent running of the vehicle.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/insurance company in the second petition stated that they had made payment as per the assessment made by the surveyor. The State Commission was, therefore, not justified in directing them to make further payment of `_50,000/- with interest. It has been recorded in the order of the District Forum that counsel for the OP had made a statement that amount of `_1,47,841/- was the full and final payment in respect of the said complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent-1 stated that in revision petition no. 2346/2013 filed by the Insurance Company, there had been an inordinate delay of 72 days in filing the petition and no valid reasons had been stated in the application for condonation of delay. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The learned counsel further stated that it had nowhere been stated by the complainant or his counsel that the amount of `_1,47,841/- was being accepted as full and final settlement. The Insurance Company had been pressurising them to receive the same after giving such an undertaking, and in the process, they delayed the payment, but there was no full and final settlement anywhere. In fact, the District Forum Amritsar had directed the Insurance Company to release the admitted amount of `_1,47,841/- after the filing of complaint in question. The learned counsel has also pointed out our attention to the interim orders recorded by the District Forum, in which it was stated that Shri Updip Singh, Advocate had accepted the cheque on behalf of the complainant, but it was not stated anywhere that the cheque was accepted as full and final settlement. Referring to the mileage covered by the vehicle, the learned counsel stated that in an invoice dated 21.11.2005, drawn by Harpreet Motors Pvt. Limited, the mileage was stated to be 62588 kms. It was, therefore, not correct to say that the vehicle had travelled more than 1 lakh kms. after the repairs. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the vehicle had to be sent for repairs again and again, only because the first repair done after the accident was not satisfactory.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
9. There is a delay of 72 days in filing RP/2346/2013, National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Dr. Prithipal Singh Bhandari & Ors. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, saying that certain time was spent in obtaining the legal opinion and then getting the approval and sanction of the head office of the petitioner at Kolkata. Thereafter, the regional office at Chandigarh sent the case to the regional office at Delhi, which assigned the matter to a counsel at Delhi. In view of the position explained in the application for condonation of delay and during the arguments, the delay in filing the petition is ordered to be condoned.
10. A perusal of the complaint and the other material on record indicates that the factum of the accident and subsequent repairs got done from M/s Harpreet Motors Pvt. Limited and other places have not been denied by any of the parties. It is quite evident, therefore, that following the accident, the vehicle had to be taken for repairs a number of times to various places for which the complainant had to spend lot of money. Against the payment of `_2,78,500/- made to M/s Harpreet Motors Pvt Limited, in the first instance, the Insurance Company decided to make payment of `_1,47,841/-. The State Commission have also stated that the surveyor had correctly applied depreciation to assess the amount of damage. However, the State Commission have rightly observed that the Insurance Company kept on insisting from time to time that the complainant should accept the said amount as full and final settlement. They did not make the payment for a long time since the complainant did not accept the amount being offered as full and final settlement. The said amount was released only after the consumer complaint was made and the District Forum passed an order to this effect. It has not been stated anywhere that the complainant accepted the amount as full and final settlement. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that the Insurance Company was liable to pay a compensation of ` 50,000/- to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice and causing him mental and physical harassment.
11. The State Commission have also taken note of the amounts spent by the complainant on a number of occasions on the repairs of the vehicle and directed that 50% of this amount should be paid by the Insurance Company and the remaining amount should be paid by the OP-4. It has been stated in the impugned order that complainant had spent an amount of Rs.1,11,060/- during the period from 26.7.2003 to 14.11.2003 for repair of the vehicle. The details of this amount have been stated as follows:
S. No. Date of the Bill Amount Exhibit
1. 24.10.2003 Rs.12,265/-
Ex.C 29 & C30
2. 13.10.2003 Rs.
2,152/-
Ex.
C31
3. 2.9.2003 Rs.
1,202/-
Ex.
C33
4. 3.11.2003 Rs.10,113/-
5. 14.11.2003 Rs.3,646/-
Ex.
C36 & C37
6. 15.12.2003 Rs.
530/-
Ex.
C38
7. 07.4.2004 Rs.25,408/-
Ex.
C43
8. 29.09.2004 Rs.32,629/-
Ex.
C65 & C67
9. 15.11.2004 Rs.
1,371/-
Ex.
C71 & C72
10. 24.11.2004 Rs.
102/-
Ex.
C77 & C78
11. 31.12.2004 Rs.21,641/-
Ex.
C84 & C90 Total Rs.1,11,059/-
Say Rs. 1,11,060/-
It is observed from the above, that an amount of Rs. 12,265/- (Sl. No.1) has been shown twice in the above details. This amount of Rs.12,265/- consists of two separate amounts i.e. Rs.2,152/- and Rs.10,113/- as per the invoice mentioned in the complaint and mentioned at Sl. Nos. 2 & 4 above . Further, the amount of Rs.25,408/- (Sl. No.7) included in the total calculation is stated to be just an estimate made by M/s. Harpreet Ford. It is clear therefore, that from the figure of Rs.1,11,060/-, two amounts of Rs.12,265/- and Rs.25,408/- are required to be deducted. The net amount paid by the complainant on repairs from 26.7.2003 to 14.11.2003 shall, therefore, be Rs. 1,11,060/- - 12,265/- - 25,408/- = Rs.73,387/-, 50% of which shall be Rs. 36,694/-.
12. The State Commission have passed well-reasoned order, saying that the 50% of the additional amount spent on repairs during 26.7.,2003 to 14.11.2003 should be paid by the insurance company and the remaining 50% amount should be paid by the OP-4, M/s. Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. We agree with the contention of the State Commission that once the vehicle had been sent to OP-4 for repairs, it was their duty to carry out all necessary repairs in one go and give the vehicle back to the complainant in a perfect running condition. A perusal of the complaint, however, indicates that OP-4, Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. first raised the repair bill of `_2,43,858/- on 31.05.2003, but when the complainant pointed out that there was lot of remaining accidental work pending, they gave another estimate of ` 40,000/-. It is made out, therefore, that OP-4 did not carry out the repairs satisfactorily in the first instance. The vehicle continued to give problems even after the delivery of the vehicle had been given to the complainant after charging a sum of `_2,78,500/-. It is clear, therefore, that the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Harpreet Motors Pvt. Limited is also established.
13. In view of the situation stated above, we find that there is no legal infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission; except the calculation for the additional amount spent on repairs. The order passed by the State Commission is therefore, modified to the extent that the amount of Rs.1,11,060/- shall be substituted as Rs.73,387/- and the amount of Rs.55,530/- payable by the insurance company and OP-4 each shall be Rs.36,694/-. The rest of the order passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER RS/