NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.4.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 21/2012, Manjit Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 17.10,2011, passed by the District Forum Gurdaspur in consumer complaint No. 515/ 2010, filed by the present respondent No. 1, was modified.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased Maruti Swift VDI car bearing registration No. PB06L0190 on 1.1.2010 from respondent No. 2/ opposite party (OP-3) Vehicleades Private Limited, Gurdaspur and obtained an insurance policy for the same from the petitioner/OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs. 4,81,534 . The said vehicle met with an accident on 24.1.2010, while being driven by the father of the complainant, Jaswant Singh. An intimation about the accident was given to the Insurance Company who deputed a surveyor H.S. Bedi to conduct preliminary inspection of the vehicle and provide spot-survey report. Another surveyor M.L. Mehta and Co. was also appointed to conduct the final survey of the vehicle and for assessment of the loss due to accident. It is stated that the complainant took the vehicle to M/s. Alliance Auto Services and obtained a repair estimate dated 18.2.2010 for Rs. 5,60,653 Thereafter, the vehicle was shifted to an authorised dealer M/s. Pathankot Vehicleades Private Limited, respondent No. 3 for providing fresh estimate and conducting repairs. The said dealer provided estimate for repairs of Rs. 4,18,803.28. However, the surveyor M.L. Mehta and Co. made assessment of loss as Rs. 3,18,118.67. The consumer complaint has been filed by Manjit Singh complainant, alleging that the Insurance Company was not settling the claim intentionally, despite approaching them so many times. The complainant sought directions to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,81,553 along with interest @ 18% p.a. or to hand over a new vehicle of same model and also to pay a penalty of Rs. 50,000 to him.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was payable on cashless basis, under which arrangement, the bid was directly payable to the repairers by the Insurance Company after deduction of depreciation on rubber parts etc. The Insurance Company stated that repair of the vehicle had been carried out under the supervision of the complainant/his representative and he should be asked to collect the vehicle from the dealer, where it was lying after repairs. The complainant should pay the depreciated value of the rubber parts directly to the dealer. The Insurance Company denied that the complainant was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,81,553 with interest or any compensation as demanded by him in the complaint, A written statement was also filed by the dealer/repairer in which they stated that the vehicle of the complainant had been completely repaired and was lying in their workshop, but the complainant never came to get the delivery of the same. They were entitled to recover the parking charges with effect from 1.2.2010 @ Rs. 100 per day. Moreover, they were entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 5,00,933 along with interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 1.2.2010. The dealer had also sent a letter dated 24.3.2011 to the complainant, saying that the vehicle was ready for delivery since November 2010.