UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. MAHENDRA POPATLAL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant is the owner of Maruti Car bearing No. DIC 3915, which was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - for the period from 24.12.91 to 23.12.92. The car met with an accident on 10.12.92 at about 7 p.m. near Kalyan Vihar, Delhi -9. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Kingsway Camp, Delhi on 11.12.92. The complainant informed the respondent about the accident and requested them for deputing a surveyor for inspecting the car. They appointed Mr. Charanjit Sharma as the surveyor.

(2.) THE complainant obtained the estimate of repairs/replacement of parts from M/s. Frontier Automobiles (hereinafter referred to as the repairer) and handed over the same to the respondent. The repairer had claimed Rs. 63,000/ - for replacement of parts plus sales tax and Rs. 9,200/ - as labour charges. It is further alleged, that it was suggested by the respondent that he should get the estimate of the repairs/ replacement of parts from authorised Maruti dealer in order to enable the respondent to exercise their option in terms of the policy. Consequently, he obtained the estimate of repairs/replacement of damaged parts from M/s. Agnells Traders Ltd. who gave the estimate in the sum of Rs. 97,796.63 for replacement of the parts and Rs. 11,740/ - as labour charges. He asked the respondent vide his letter dated 16.12.92 to indicate as to which of the options they would like to exercise with reference to condition No. 3 of the policy which was as follows: -

(3.) THE repairer, it is alleged, had started charging garrage charges @ Rs. 50/ - per day on account of delay and an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - had become due and payable to them on that account. He again sent the original estimate from the repairer to the respondent and requested them to finally get the car repaired at an early date in terms of the policy. He, thereafter, received a letter dated 13.1.93 asking him to contact their surveyor to finalise his claim. It is pleaded that the respondent failed to discharge their part of the obligation under the contract and delayed the repairing of the car without any reason.