Ludhiana | Car workshop directed to refund ₹72, 000 to city man

Jagtar Singh of Ludhiana had submitted a complaint against Chadha Supercar Private Limited., Radiant Toyota, Bhanohar, Ludhiana (opposite party 1 or OP1) and United India Insurance Company, Industrial Area, Ludhiana (OP 2). The workshop has been asked to refund ₹72, 000 to a city man and pay ₹5,000 compensation.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a local car workshop to refund ₹72, 000 to a city man and pay ₹5,000 compensation.

“Car workshop has not placed on record any document that the cost of the repair was ₹5.23 lakh as claimed by it in the written statement. Therefore, it cannot be said it was the cost of repair. OP1 has wrongly received the amount of ₹50,000 + ₹22,000 from the complainant. In these circumstances, it is deemed to have rendered deficient services and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP1 is directed to refund ₹72,000 to the complainant, “ Ludhiana commission’s order read. (HT FILE)

Jagtar Singh of Ludhiana had submitted a complaint against Chadha Supercar Private Limited., Radiant Toyota, Bhanohar, Ludhiana (opposite party 1 or OP1) and United India Insurance Company, Industrial Area, Ludhiana (OP 2).

Jagtar in his complaint stated that he purchased a Toyota Etios VHP Diesel car in 2015 and the gotten it insured from United India Insurance Company.

On December 27, 2017, the car met with an accident on Ludhiana-Malerkotla Road. He left the car at the workshop of Chadha Supercar Private Limited and the job card was issued on December 28, 2017. In this regard, information was also sent to the insurance company who appointed a surveyor.

The surveyor reported that it was a case of total loss (declared when a vehicle is damaged to such an extent that the cost of repair is higher than the vehicle’s total IDV) and the complainant agreed to it. The complainant then purchased a new car in February 2018.

However, in April 2018, the insurer told him that the car could be repaired and the opposite parties asked him to pay ₹50,000 for it which was deposited on April 9, 2018, even though, the policy was a zero depreciation policy. The car was repaired and the insurer issued the balance payment amounting to ₹4.35 lakh (minus TDS) to the workshop.

However, Singh alleged that despite the payment being made, the workshop did not release the car. He further stated that the initial loss was assessed at ₹ 7 lakh, but he OPs in connivance with each other calculated it at ₹5.25 lakh.

Moreover, the bill was issued by OP1 to the insurance company, but the latter paid only ₹4.35 lakh and ₹50,000 was paid by the complainant through the cheque stated above.

The complainant further paid ₹22,000 to OP1 as per the direction issued by Ludhiana Commission and took the possession of the vehicle.

However, resisting the complaint, the counsel for Chadha Supercar Pvt.Ltd claimed that total cost of the repair was ₹5.23 lakh, including taxes, but it excluded other charges of parking and security and the complainant was supposed to pay remaining repair charges of ₹45,090.

The commission however stated that with the payment of ₹4.35 lakh, the liability of the insurance company stands discharged and it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency of service on its part.

“OP1 has not placed on record any document that the cost of the repair was ₹5.23 lakh as claimed by it in the written statement. Therefore, it cannot be said it was the cost of repair. OP1 has wrongly received the amount of ₹50,000 + ₹22,000 from the complainant. In these circumstances, it is deemed to have rendered deficient services and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP1 is directed to refund ₹72,000 to the complainant along with composite costs of ₹5,000”, observed the Commission.