Narendra Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 15.09.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.674 of 2015.

The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that on 06.08.2012 he bought a vehicle Mahindra Verita D6 diesel K.9 K.P.S., 5W DAV SIR from Tirupati Vehicle Pvt. Ltd, Bijnor. On 22.08.2013, the Complainant got his vehicle insured with the Opposite Party/Respondent, vide Policy No.46080631136165001972. On 28.11.2013 at about 9 am on Moradabad-Bijnor road curve (puliya) a truck hit the car of the Complainant from back side due to which the car fell into the pit. In the accident, the car got completely damaged and the Complainant also suffered injuries. The Complainant took the car to the service station. The service quotation inter alia included that gear box assay was also damaged. The Surveyor deputed by the Opposite Party submitted a false report regarding gear box.

On 18.03.2014, the car broke down due to faulty gear box and the Complainant again got it repaired. Again the car broke down on 05.04.2014 and the Complainant got it repaired. Same incident was repeated on 06.04.2014 and 17.04.2014.  The Complainant was told that gear box required overhauling which would cost around Rs.89,500/- + Rs.3500/-. The Opposite Party denied reimbursement for overhauling of the gear box. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“A.  That the opposite parties should be ordered to bear gear box etc expenditure 1,14,000 rupees with 8% per annum for disobeying the service conditions rules and the expenses of 6,000 rupees to brought the car with toe carrier with pendent lite interest till the time the complaint is decreed, in favour of complainant.

B.  That the complainant pleas for 3000 rupees be given for the mental and physical damage.

C.  That the complainant be awarded the cost of the complaint from the opposite parties.

D.  That any other relief which arises in favour of complainant may be awarded to the complainant by the opposite parties.”

The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing reply stating that on receiving information about the accident, they deputed Mr. V.P. Maheshwari as Surveyor for assessment of loss. The Surveyor on the basis of quotation No.QTN 14 A000236 provided by Tirupati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. submitted Survey Report on 28.02.2014. The Opposite Party provided cashless facility and paid the amount to Tirupati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. At that time, the Complainant did not raise any objection. Thereafter, the Complainant got the car repaired three times on 05.04.2014, 06.04.2014 and 17.04.2014. The Opposite Party had nothing to do with the subsequent repairs. The Complainant had no cause of action against the Opposite Party and the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.

The District Forum after hearing the learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, partly allowed the Complaint and passed the following order: -

“The Complaint is partly allowed with the complaint cost of Rs.4000/- the Respondents are directed to pay rupees 114208.58 to the complainant for the repairing of gear box. The respondents are directed to pay rupees 5000/- to the complainant for mental agony and damages. The order be complied within 30 days.”

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party preferred First Appeal No.674 of 2015 with the State Commission. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 15.09.2016, allowed the Appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint.

Hence the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that in quotation No.QTN 14 A000236 dated 10.12.2013 it was mentioned that gear box was damaged but the Surveyor intentionally did not allow repair of the gear box. The State Commission also overlooked the fact that the Complainant had to take the vehicle three times for repairing the gear box. Had the Opposite Party allowed repair of the gear box at the time of the accident, the Complainant would not have faced further problem.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent settled the claim at Rs.3,45,654/- with the consent of the Complainant. It is not the case of the Complainant that the consent letter was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence. After signing the consent letter, the Complainant cannot take the plea that the Surveyor had submitted a wrong Survey Report. There is no material on record to show that breakdowns were due to faulty gear box. This Commission is not required to reassess the evidence in revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

The main issue is whether Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by not approving the claim for gear box. The Complainant alleged that the gear box was completely damaged. The Service Centre also quoted amount of Rs.94,993.86 towards gear box. Complainant filed copy of the service quotation issued by the Authorized Service Centre indicating the same amount for gear box. The Surveyor, however, disallowed the amount for gear box, without assigning any reason whatsoever. After repairs, several breakdowns took place continuously on 08.03.2014, 05.04.2014, 06.04.2014 and 17.04.2014 due to gear box problem. Had the gear box been changed after the accident as suggested by the Authorized Service Centre, subsequent problem in the gear box would not have occurred. The Opposite Party by not allowing the claim for gear box certainly committed deficiency in service. The State Commission failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

In view of the above, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. The Respondent/Opposite Party is directed to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum with 6% interest from the date of the order of the District Forum till realization. The order be complied within 60 days, failing which the interest be paid @ 9% p.a.