BALJIT SINGH GILL Vs. ICICI LOMBARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Insured Toyota Corolla car on raising loan from ICICI Bank by petitioner met with an accident on 24th November, 2006 when it sustained major damages. Car was taken to respondent no.2, authorized dealer of Kirloskar Motors for repairs. Information about accident and damages so suffered was also supplied to Insurance Company, the insurer. Authorized dealer to whom vehicle was taken for repair prepared total bill of repairs at Rs.5,43,658/-. Since Insurance Company was not willing to meet total repairing cost, petitioner made payment of Rs.1,91,410/-. Insurance Company towards their liability made payment of Rs.3,62,706/- to authorized dealer on 30th June, 2007. Alleging deficiency on part of authorized dealer and also financer ICICI Lombard, a consumer complaint was filed by petitioner. Claim was resisted by opposite parties for there being no deficiency on their part and District Forum having accepted their defence finding no merit dismissed complaint. Appeal, however, preferred by petitioner was accepted by State Commission partly admitting claim, directing respondent no.1 to return Rs.48,574.30 ps. to petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum as also litigation cost of Rs.2100/-.

(2.) Though a number of grievances, including that considerable time was consumed by authorized dealer in making repairs of vehicle, were raised by petitioner alleging deficiency on part of the authorized dealer, State Commission having taken notice of satisfaction note executed by petitioner on 19th April, 2007 suggesting no complaint and also petitioner having taken trial run of vehicle, found no merit with grievance of petitioner on this score as against authorized dealer. However, it also held that though as per assessment made by surveyor petitioner was required to share Rs.48,574.30 only towards depreciation of vehicle, in addition to salvage value of Rs.26,858.17 ps. , he had to pay Rs.191410/- and in this backdrop State Commission held respondent no.1 liable to refund Rs.48,574.30 to petitioner along with interest. There being no error with finding of State Commission requiring our interference in revision, revision petition in the circumstances is dismissed with no order as to costs.