HARPREET MOTORS (P) LIMITED Vs. PRITHIPAL SINGH BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 332/2008, "Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari versus National Insurance Company & Ors." vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.02.2008 in consumer complaint no. 183/2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, dismissing the said consumer complaint, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari got his 1997 model "Ford Escort" diesel car insured with National Insurance Company OP-1 for the period from 23.04.2002 to 12.04.2003 for Rs. 3,50,000/- plus Rs. _10,000/- for sound system. OP-2 & 3, M/s. Ford India Limited and M/s. Ford Motor Company are the manufacturers of the car. OP-4 is the dealer of OP 2 in Delhi and carried out repairs of the said car. OP-5 & 6 also carried out the repair of the said car at some stage or the other. OP 7 is the surveyor and loss assessor appointed by the insurance company. The said car met with an accident with a trailer on 12.04.2003 near Phillaur (District Jalandhar) when the wife of the complainant was going from Amritsar to Delhi. The car was being driven by her driver Kumar Kamat. The accident resulted in damage to the vehicle as well as injuries to the passengers. A police report no. 30 dated 12.04.2003 was lodged with Police Station Phillaur. The matter was informed to OP-1 Insurance Company on telephone on 12.04.2003 and a written intimation was also sent on the next working day, i.e., 15.04.2013. The vehicle was shifted with the help of a tow-away vehicle to New Delhi to the workshop of OP-4, Harpreet Motors at New Delhi. The Regional Office of OP-1 Insurance Company at Delhi appointed M/s. K.R. Arora/ OP-7, surveyor to assess the loss. OP-4 Harpreet Motors carried out the repairs and raised bill of Rs. 2,43,858/- dated 31.05.2003. However, when the complainant went to the workshop of OP-4 to take the delivery, he found that lot of work was still pending. OP-4 gave him another estimate of Rs. 40,000/- for the balance work. After that, the complainant received letter dated 24.06.2003 from OP-4, intimating that the vehicle was ready for delivery and the bill amount of Rs. _2,65,000/- approximately was to be paid. It has been alleged by the complainant that there were still defects in the vehicle for which the complainant wrote to OP-2 as well as OP-4 to get the vehicle properly repaired. Ultimately, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant by OP-4 on 25.07.2003 against final invoice of Rs. 2,78,500/-. The reading on the speedometer of the car at that time was 18996. The complainant also spent Rs. _2,746/- for the repair of tyres/tubes and Rs. _4,077/- was charged by the surveyor. It has been alleged that there were still complaints of leakage from oil seal and noise from lower side, for which the vehicle was sent to OP-5 for repairs. As narrated in the complaint, over the next few months, the vehicle had to be sent frequently for repairs and every time, some payment or the other was made to the repairers. The OP-4 gave him another estimate for repair for Rs. 32,629/-. On the other hand, the Insurance Company informed the complainant that they had passed the claim for Rs. 1,47,841/- against the original claim of Rs. _2,78,500/-. The complainant has alleged that despite making complaints and numerous visits, the OPs were not able to repair the vehicle properly and give it to him in a fit working condition. On the other hand, the Insurance Company kept on insisting that the complainant should give acceptance for the amount of Rs. 1,47,841/- as full and final settlement and only then, the payment will be released. As per the complainant, the amount of Rs. 1,47,841/- was accepted from the Insurance Company, but nothing was stated about the full and final settlement. The consumer complaint in question was then filed before the District Forum, giving full details of the amounts spent by the complainant, saying that in total, a sum of Rs. 3,83,152/- had been spent for repairs. The complainant demanded that the insured value of Rs. _3,60,000/- should be paid to him alongwith interest @18% p.a; and Rs. 5 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and the litigation cost should also be paid.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 19.02.2008, concluded that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs. _1,47,841/- as full and final settlement of his claim and hence, they dismissed the complaint. An appeal was made against this order before the State Commission under section 15 of the Act, which was decided vide impugned order dated 23.11.2012. The State Commission observed that a sum of Rs. _1,11,060/- was spent by the complainant for repairs from 26.07.2003 to 31.12.2004. Out of this amount, Rs. _55,530/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant and the remaining amount shall be paid by OP-4 Harpreet Motors. The State Commission also observed that the surveyor had worked out the figure of Rs. _1,47,841/- after accounting for 50% of depreciation on various items, but since the Insurance Company had placed an unreasonable condition of accepting the amount as full and final settlement only, the Insurance Company should pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for adopting unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The State Commission also awarded interest on the payable amount of compensation with effect from 2.9.2003 till realisation. A litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- was also allowed to the complainant.