VIJAY PATEL S/O JAI SINGH PATEL Vs. SHIVNATH AUTOMOBILES & ANR THROUGH MANAGER; IFKO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO THROUGH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.05.2017 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. FA/2017/ 98.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a vehicle Scorpio, Registration no. CG 09 JB 9577, Chassis no. F2H 46645, Engine no. F2H 46645 from Shivnath Automobiles, Kavardha. The petitioner had got financed the said vehicle by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Kavardha. The petitioner had purchased the said vehicle from the respondents for his business purposes. The petitioner had made payment for insurance premium of Rs.46,075/- at Shivnath Automobiles, Kavardha. The insurance was done from 21.10.2015 to 20.10.2016 vide policy no. 94698112. The respondents at the time of insurance of the vehicle had assured the petitioner that in case of any accident, damage etc., during the insured period, compensation of the damages will be borne by respondent no.2. On the basis of the assurance, the petitioner trusted and insured his vehicle Scorpio from respondent no. 2. Hence, the respondents were the service provider and the petitioner was the consumer of respondent no. 1. The petitioner was using the said vehicle for his personal use. On 01.01.2016, the petitioner was returning from Bhoramdev Temple to Kavardha, near Raja Navagon, when due to sudden appearance of an animal on the road the driver of the vehicle lost control and the vehicle toppled on the road. The vehicle was damaged to a great extent which was informed verbally by petitioner's brother Mukesh Patel to the respondents as at the time of the accident, the petitioner was driving the vehicle. At that time, the respondents told Mukesh Patel and the petitioner that as there was no loss of life, there was no need for a police complaint at local police station. On the basis of the advice of the respondents, the petitioner never reported the matter to police. The vehicle was taken to Shivnath Automobiles Service Centre, Durg, Bhillai for repair on 02.01.206 as per the respondent's instructions. The respondent had assured to return the repaired vehicle at the earliest to the petitioner. The said vehicle was not serviced by the respondent at the workshop specified by them from 02.01.2016 till 18.02.2016. The petitioner had requested, in writing, respondent no. 1 for an early action on the repair request. The petitioner was told by respondent nos. 1 and 2 that he may initially pay for the repair charges on his own, and the respondents may compensate the petitioner for all the expenses pertaining to the repair or services. Trusting their statements, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,21,848/- on his own and received the said vehicle. As mentined, on the date of the accident, the petitioner's brother Mukesh Patel had informed about the incident to respondents office and had also received complaint no. 1-49 KZDW from the authorised personnel of the respondent's office. The petitioner was asked to provide the complete documents relating to the insurance claim for the said vehicle as per the insurance policy for payment of related expenses for repair or services. As advised by the respondents, the total expenses for service and repair at the service centre came to Rs.2,21,848/- which was assured to be compensated by the respondents which was not paid by the insurance company to the petitioner till date and that had caused lot of mental, financial and physical loss to the petitioner. The respondents had confirmed verbally even at the time of filing the application for insurance claim for the accidental damages that all the expenses pertaining to the repairs and other expenses of the petitioner for Rs.2,21,848/- would be paid shortly. However, the respondents never compensated for the expenses. On an enquiry, by the petitioner for the pending compensation, no concrete answer was provided by the respondents. Under these circumstances, the petitioner apprehended that the respondents were not interested to pay the compensation of Rs.2,21,848/- as per the policy. This was a lapse of fulfilling duties by the respondents and deficiency of service because of which the petitioner had suffered losses as per the insurance policy for which the respondents were fully responsible, hence, he prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (C G) ('the District Forum') vide its order dated 02.12.2016 while dismissing the complaint observed as under: