KABERI GHOSH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD & 4 ORS; GENERAL MANAGER, (WORKSHOP), SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD; WORK MANAGER, (WORKSHOP), SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD; RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE; AREA MANAGER, ( SERVIES) ASHOK LEYLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant owned an Ashok Leyland truck which she got insured with Respondent No.4 Reliance General Insurance Company. The said vehicle having met with an accident on 19.2.2010, it was taken to the workshop of Respondents No. 1-3 on 22.2.2010. On a claim being lodged by the complainant with the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the damage. Respondents No.1-3 gave an estimate of Rs.10,57,268/-, which was not acceptable to the surveyor. He therefore asked Respondents No.1-3 to dismantle the vehicle in order to enable him to make a thorough inspection. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle was not dismantled despite advance of Rs.1,50,000/- having been taken from him by Respondents No.1-3. Since the vehicle was not dismantled, the clam was ultimately closed by the insurer. The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the insurer as well as Respondents No.1-3 as the opposite parties in the complaint.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the Respondents No.1-3, inter-alia alleged that after rejection of the first estimate by the surveyor, a second estimate was prepared and submitted to the insurer on 06.8.2010. It was further alleged that the vehicle had been dismantled as per the advice of the surveyor but he failed to inspect the dismantled vehicle. It was also alleged that the vehicle was in a bad condition and after the mechanical parts were ready, the complainant was asked to send her representative to the workshop but she did not render due cooperation. It is further alleged that out of Rs.1,50,000/- received from the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,17,914/- was adjusted towards payment of the previous outstanding. It was also claimed that they had already spent more than Rs.5,50,000/- on repairing the vehicle.

(3.) The insurer also filed its reply stating therein that the vehicle was not dismantled by Respondents No.1-3 despite the surveyor asking them to do so. It was further stated in the reply filed by the insurer that the estimate given by the workshop exaggerated as would be evident that later on details of expenses amounting to Rs.3,10,276/- were given by them.