IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MONIKA BATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.6.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short "District Forum") vide which the complaint was allowed. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle was insured from appellant -opposite party No. 3 (O.P. No. 3) for Rs. 6,49,996 on 17.12.2012. There was manufacturing defect in engine and gear box, etc. but despite that O.P. No. 2 sold the car. This car should have been brought to the workshop of O.P. No. 2 by hiring a truck but was brought with the help of: the crane due to which it became totally unfit and further damaged and lost its value. On 7.3.2013 when the car was inspected it was not told that the engine of the car was seized. This fact was brought to her notice on 14.3.2013. On 2.4.2013 it was told that turbo and self were out of order and were to be replaced. These problems developed within six months and show that there was manufacturing defect. The car should have been repaired as per warranty. The O.Ps. be directed to deliver new car along with Rs. Three lacs in cash or Rs. 10 lacs i.e. value of the car.

(2.) IN addition thereto, O.P. No. 3 alleged that Surveyor duly licensed by I.R.D.A. (Statutory Body) assessed the loss and the same was paid to the dealer/repairer after obtaining claim discharge -cum -satisfaction voucher from the insured i.e. complainant to the effect that vehicle was repaired to her satisfaction. When the claim has been settled as full and final for Rs. 1,00,849 it is not liable to pay any amount. Objection about locus standi, misjoinder of parties, estoppel etc. were also raised.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint with following directions: