NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PUJANJLI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the impugned order dated 22.10.2016, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur (for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No.503 of 2016).

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per Respondent/Complainant are that she had purchased the vehicle on 24.10.2011 and had insured her vehicle make Chevrolet Spark bearing No.C.G.10 FA 5130 for the period 24.10.2011 to 23.10.2012. On 17.01.2012, the vehicle met with an accident and report to that effect was lodged with the Police Station. After that she brought the vehicle to Vardhman workshop for repairing, who issued an estimate of Rs.3,50,000/- for repairs. The cashless facility was provided by the Petitioner against repair charges. After a period of one year, the Workshop repaired her vehicle. Against the final bill of Rs.3,54,203/- being repair charges, the Petitioner only paid Rs.1,75,000/-. Therefore, the Petitioner had to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,79,203/-. The estimate of repairs was of Rs.3,50,000/- therefore, vehicle should have been considered total loss and the entire payment should have been paid by the Petitioner, which they have neither paid and nor have they given any information about the same. However, after taking permission for repairs, the vehicle was got repaired and only an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was transferred to her account which shows unfair trade practice and deficient services on the part of the Petitioner. Hence, the Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking that the Petitioner may be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1, 79,203/- along with interest @ 10% P.A. for 7 months on the said amount i.e Rs.4480/- to the Respondent/Complainant together with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for rendering deficient services as also the cost of litigation.

(3.) The Petitioner/Opposite Party filed the written statement denying therein all the allegations of the Respondent/Complainant that the vehicle was insured by extending cashless facility. The Respondent herself got the vehicle repaired at Vardhman Workshop according to her satisfaction. The Petitioner was only liable to make payment in accordance with the report of the independent surveyor and as per his assessment. Therefore, the Respondent was not entitled to receive any further payment from the Petitioner and they prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.