DHIRENDRA GUPTA Vs. VARDA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant owned a vehicle bearing no. CG-04/HB-8992 which he had got insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 03.03.2011 and got damaged. The vehicle was taken by him to the workshop of the respondent/opposite party where it was inspected by a surveyor appointed by the insurance company. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 75,000/-, though the opposite party had given an invoice dated 28.09.2011 of Rs. 5,17,455/- to the petitioner/complainant. The opposite party refused to give delivery of the repaired vehicle to the complainant unless the bill raised by it was paid by him. The complainant however, did not pay the bill of the opposite party taking a plea that the repair had been carried out without instructions from him. He approached the concerned District Forum by way of complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to issue bill only for the parts which the surveyor had found to be damaged in the accident and also pay him compensation for the deficiency in service as well as for his not being able to use the vehicle for one year. The insurer was not impleaded as a party to the complaint.

(2.) The respondent/opposite party filed a reply contesting the complaint. It was inter-alia stated in the reply that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop, it became evident that it had suffered damages even prior to the accident on 03.03.2011. An estimate was given to the complainant Sh. Dhirendra Gupta and he was also informed that the cost of repair could increase by 10-15% from the estimate. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the insurance company and instructed the opposite party to start repair of the vehicle. After completing the repair, the opposite party intimated the complainant and that stage, he refused to pay the amount of the bill raised by the opposite party. It was further stated in the reply that the coolant of the vehicle having come out, the complainant should have contacted the customer care which would have brought the vehicle to the showroom but instead of doing so, he himself drove the vehicle to the showroom as a result of which the engine got overheated causing damage to the crack, connecting rod bearing, exhaust many fold, cooler for exhaust gas, ranger control, adjustment motor, radiator etc. Considering the small quantity of the coolant left in the vehicle, it could have run for 10-15 kms, but the complainant had run it as much as 50 kms which resulted in damaging the above referred parts, because of overheating. The opposite party also claimed that it was also entitled to parking charges of Rs. 300/- per day in addition to the cost of repair amounting to Rs. 5,17,455/-.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 25.03.2014, directed the opposite party to take from the complainant, repairing charges as per the report of the surveyor appointed by the insurer and return the vehicle. It was also directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.