JAMKASH VEHICLEADES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SANSAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (for short 'the Commission'), whereby appeal filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu (for short 'the District Forum') dated 13.02.2016, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Maruti 800 car, bearing registration No. JK02X-4578 owned by the respondent No.1 met with an accident on 07.02.2012. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of the petitioners on 10.02.2012. Estimate for repairs was prepared by the petitioners on 25.02.2012. It was the calculation to make the vehicle road worthy. The amount estimated was 1,20,580/-. The estimate did not have any relation with the amount which may be reimbursed by the insurance company on account of various conditions in the policy. The insurance company was informed. Surveyor was appointed on 06.03.2012. He inspected the vehicle on 08.03.2012 and submitted his report on 18.06.2012. The vehicle had been insured for a sum of 97,380/- and the condition in the policy provided that in case the cost of repair is more than 75% of the insured value, the vehicle shall be treated as total loss. The surveyor had estimated the claim of 60,674/- as the same did not exceed 75% of the insured value, the insurance company did not declare the vehicle as total loss.

(3.) It was further submitted that the petitioners sent a communication to the respondent No.1/the owner of the vehicle and asked him to deposit 25,000/- as advance so as to enable the petitioners to start repairs of the vehicle, as insurance company had assessed the claim only to the tune of 60,674/-. The delay was for the reason that the respondent No.1 was persuading the insurance company to declare the vehicle as total loss. The aforesaid letter of the petitioners was replied to by the respondent No.1/owner on 15.03.2013 consenting to the repairs. It was followed by another letter dated 02.04.2013. Thereafter, on 28.05.2013, the respondent No.1/owner deposited a sum of 2,500/- towards repairs of the vehicle. After complete repairs, final bill to the tune of 1,23,111/- was prepared. In fact the vehicle had been repaired in the year 2013 only. However, the billing and other formalities were kept pending on the request of the petitioners as he was persuading the insurance company to declare the vehicle as total loss. This is even evident from the fact that the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Forum with a prayer for reimbursement of loss and payment of compensation.