The liability of the service provider hinges on actual failures in service, and insurers must accurately assess claims based on their policy obligations.

PER BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-2 dealer against the order of the State Commission, wherein State Commission while partly allowing the first appeal of the petitioner herein and confirming the order of the District Forum, maintained and fastened a liability for com pensation of Rs.2 lakhs on the petitioner. The case of the respondent no.1 /com plainant before the District Forum was that com plainant purchased a vehicle from petitioner/OP-2 in the month of March, 2017 and insurance was taken from respondent no. 2. The vehicle m et with an accident in the month of January, 2019. Respondent No.2 insurer appointed a surveyor to assess the damage. Although delayed, approval was granted for reimbursem ent by the Insurance Company, pursuant to which the repair works were commenced by the Petitioner. Significantly, while doing so, certain faults in the engine of the vehicle were ascertained, and the same was com municated to the Insurance Com pany for seeking approval, as it involved further repairing charges which the Petitioner cannot undertake without the formal approval. But approval was denied for the same, as a consequence of which the petitioner informed the complainant/R-1 and sought for an advance of Rs.1,20,000/-, and the sam e was paid by the com plainant. W hen the vehicle was ready for delivery after com pletely repairing the sam e and when the outstanding repair charges including spare parts to a tune of Rs.5,66,185/- were sought from R-1, she denied paying the same. In this process neither the insurer nor the R-1 agreed to reimburse the investm ent made by the petitioner, hence the vehicle was assured to be delivered only on payment of the outstanding costs incurred to the tune of Rs.5,66,185/-. Even though the petitioner assured to deliver the vehicle subject to paym ent of outstanding dues, R-1/complainant agitated the issue before the District Com mission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the petitioner when all works were completed by the petitioner and when the vehicle was in a fit condition for normal usage. R-1/complainant sought for reliefs of refund of Rs.1,20,000/- from the Petitioner/Dealer and for a com pensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the . The Insurance Com pany remained ex-parte before the District Forum, and deliberately chose not to contest the proceedings. District Com mission allowed the com plaint of the com plainant and held petitioner/OP-2 liable- for deficiency in service and directed OP-2 to refund Rs. 1,20,000/- to the com plainant and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as com pensation by passing the following order:

“9. Accident of the vehicle has not been denied. Cashless insurance of the vehicle has also not been denied. The letter of the insurance company addressed to the complainant available on record reads as follows, 'We thank you for choosing your Motor Insurance from ICICI Lombard General insurance Company-Ltd. (the INSURER.). Your motor Insurance policy from the insurer will be generated through Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (MIBPL). We are committed in bringing to you a satisfying experience for all your Motor Insurance requirements. Keeping your convenience in mind we have arranged to fulfil all your motor insurance needs at your nearest Nissan Authorized dealerships, xxx" This shows that the O.P. 2 is within the network of the insurance company for cashless policy. Therefore" the complainant is not liable to pay for the repairing of the accidental vehicle and the O.P.2 is under obligation to reimbursed the charges from the insurance company. The demand of repairing charges from the complainant and detaining the vehicle in the workshop formore than one year amounts to unfair practice.