UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., & ANR. vs BALWINDER SINGH, & ORS.

The complainant namely Balwinder Singh owned a vehicle which he had got insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., petitioner in RP No.486 of 2016. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and was taken to the workshop of Harman Motors, petitioner in RP No.1446 of 2016. The vehicle was inspected by Sh. Jaspreet Singh, a surveyor appointed by the insurer. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant, on account of damage to the vehicle, at Rs.1,21,827.75p and recommended payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant. After deducting the salvage value which came to Rs.5,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,16,826/- was paid to the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to Harman Motors in two installments. He issued a cheuqe of Rs.24,000/- to Harman Motors which was later on dishonoured. The case of the complainant is that while repairing the vehicle, Harman Motors replaced the damaged parts of the vehicle by the old parts. The delivery of the vehicle having not been given to him by Harman Motors, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the insurer as well as Harman Motors and the surveyor as the opposite parties in the complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the insurer as well as by Harman Motors. It was pleaded by the insurer that they having paid the compensation recommended by the surveyor, were not liable to make any further payment to the complainant. Harman Motors took the stand that the complainant wanted replacement of the shell by a new shell and on his instructions, the shell was replaced accordingly. The cost of replacement of the shell according to Harman Motors came to Rs.1,32,000/-. This is also the case of Harman Motors that the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.24,000/- towards payment of the first installment of the amount payable by him but that cheque got dishonoured when presented to the bank. It was however, admitted that he had received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant. Thus, according to Harman Motors, in addition to the amount received from the complainant, it was entitled to an additional payment of Rs.1,32,000/- towards the cost of replacement of the shell. The learned counsel for Harman Motors states that they had delivered the vehicle to the complainant after receiving a cheque of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant.

The District Forum vide its order dated 12.10.2011 directed both, the insurer as well as Harman Motors, to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 9% per annum. The insurer was also directed to reimburse the IDV of the vehicle which was stated to be Rs.2,48,000/- alongwith interest. The complainant was directed to return the car to the insurer on receipt of the awarded amount. Rs.3,000/- was awarded each against Harman Motors and the insurer.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, both the insurer as well as Harman Motors approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. Both the appeals having been dismissed, the insurer and Harman Motors are before this Commission by way of these two separate revision petitions; one filed by the insurer and the other filed by Harman Motors.

The notice of the revision petitions was served upon the complainant but no one has appeared for it despite service of the notice. I have therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

As far as the insurer is concerned, it having paid the entire amount as per the assessment made by the surveyor and the complainant having accepted that amount without raising any objection and without lodging any protest is not liable to make any further payment to the complainant. The direction to the insurer to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as well as the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant, therefore, cannot be sustained.

As far as Harman Motors is concerned, as noted earlier, the case of the said petitioner is that the shell of the vehicle was replaced with a new shell on the instructions of the complainant, at the cost of Rs.1,32,000/-. However, there is absolutely no documentary evidence of any such instruction having been given by the complainant to Harman Motors. Had such instructions been given, Harman Motors would have sought the same in writing and in any case, would not have delivered the vehicle to the complainant after receiving cheque of Rs.24,000/-. If Harman Motors was to receive any balance payment from the complainant, the least it would have done while delivering the vehicle to the complainant would have to obtain a writing from him promising to pay the balance amount. It therefore, appears to me that the complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.24,000/- to Harman Motors and that is why a cheque for the said amount was issued by him to Harman Motors which later on got dishonoured. However, the report of inspection carried out by Neo Tricity Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on the directions of the District Forum as well as the report of the supervisor in the office of General Manager, Chandigarh Transport undertaking shows that the repair work was not satisfactory and in particular, the shell alleged to have been replaced by Harman Motors was totally damaged and had patches at many places. The report of Neo Tricity Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"On the request of complainant I inspect the total repaired work and salvage/replaced parts of the said car it is noted that some parts was not shown/given by the Harman Motor''s is as under and work report.

No.1 AC Fan. 2. Radiator shroud. That hood shell is dented. The body shell replaced by the Harman Motors is not worth of Rs.42,000/- as he claimed because lower floor of the shell is totally damaged and patched with Rough Iron Sheet at many places due to patch work and used rough Iron sheets strength of the body shell weakened. Fitting of the body parts is not proper painting is not done properly and quality of paint is very poor and more over Harman Motors have not painting booth. That the rate of painting very high. After repair of the car. The market value of the car is come very down that is very important."

The report of Sh. Kanhaya Lal, Supervisor, CTU-I, Chandigarh to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"Remarks: Car condition is very poor even after heavy repair.

Paint colour mismatched, quality of paint is poor, rubbing is very poor.

Both Quarter Pannel repaired

Card Board of dicky broken (Not replace)

Parts not fitted properly.

Body shell welded from number of places on floor and body due to that car has poor life span and due to these all the market value of the car is reduces.

Inspection report is submitted before your worthy.

Consideration please it is also submitted that Rs.2,500/- has been received to conduct the inspection."

It would thus be seen that though a number of parts were replaced by new parts, the repair work was not at all satisfactory. In particular, the body shell was not even in acceptable condition, the same having been welded a number of places thereby reducing the life span of the vehicle. Considering that Harman Motors had failed to repair the vehicle in a satisfactory manner, the direction of the fora below for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- received by it from the complainant does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition filed by Harman Motors is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs whereas the revision petition filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. is allowed and the impugned order to the extent it fastens liability upon United India Insurance Company Ltd. is set aside. The revision petitions stand disposed of.