KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.155/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.137/2012 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad dated, 29/11/2012)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                             :                  MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :                  MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Divisional Manager,

          Oriental Insurance Co.,

Rohini Building,

          Pazhavangadi,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:  Thomas P Jacob)                   

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Anoop Raj,

            Veluthakkal Veedu,

            Panthaparambu, Mudappallur P.O.,

            Alathur, Palakkad-678 705.

(By Adv:  P Rajmohan)                   

 JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite party against the order passed in C.C.No.137/2012 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. 

2.  The crux of the case is that the complainant purchased a pick-up van for self-employment for earning his livelihood.  The vehicle met with an accident on 08/02/12 and sustained injuries to the complainant and the vehicle also got damaged.  As directed by the opposite party, the vehicle was entrusted for repair with Akshaya Motors.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,39,857/- as repair charges and it is informed that the amount will be re-imbursed by the opposite party as the vehicle was having valid Insurance Policy.  The opposite party paid Rs.91,100/- after deducting Rs.12,000/- towards salvage charges and Rs.500/- as policy excess.  The opposite party deducted Rs.46,257/-.  It is stated in the complaint that he had to pay Rs.27,673/- towards labour charges out of which only Rs.6,500/- was allowed by the opposite party.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party also deducted Rs.15,087/- against cost of the spare parts.  As per the policy condition, no depreciation will be calculated for the damage occurred within six months for the new vehicle.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and it is to be compensated.  The complaint is filed for Rs.48,757/- from the opposite party. 

          3.  In the version filed by the opposite party it is contended that the vehicle was having valid insurance policy from 18/10/2011 to 17/10/2012.  The vehicle was inspected by an independent surveyor and a technical report was submitted and the loss assessed as per IRDA Rules.  It is admitted that the salvage amount and policy excess has been calculated to the tune of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively.  The complainant accepted the amount and thereafter filed this complaint. Under commercial vehicles package policy Section(1) states that the deduction for depreciation towards the rubber, plastic etc. will be calculated at particular percentage.  In this case also the accepted terms and conditions of the policy was calculated.  The discharge voucher was sanctioned for full and final settlement which was executed by the complainant voluntarily.  Nowhere it is stated that depreciation will not be calculated in case of a new vehicle damaged within six months as claimed by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

          4.  To substantiate the case the complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents Exbts: A1 to A7 and on the part of opposite parties Exbts: B1 to B9 were marked. 

5.  The counsel for the appellant in his submission brought to our notice that the allegation of not disbursing the repair charge does not amount to any deficiency in service.  The vehicle met with an accident and it was repaired by the complainant and submitted the bill for re-imbursement to the opposite party.  It is true that the surveyor submitted the technical report and against the labour charges of Rs.27,200/-, the amount allowed was Rs.6500/-.  The depreciation is calculated as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence the cost of spare parts and the policy excess was deducted from the total amount expended by the complainant.  The Forum Below allowed the labour charges in full and this was challenged in appeal.  The counsel argued that there is no pleading to the effect of coercion while accepting the full and final settlement.  He also pointed out that no issue raised regarding labour charges.  The Forum has not applied its mind and allowed the total labour charges.  The Forum allowed compensation to the complainant which is not allowable.

          6.  It is submitted by the respondent’s counsel that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 08/10/2011 and accident took place on 08/02/2012.  Exbt: A5 series were prepared by the workshop people against labour charges it is shown as Rs.27,200/-.  He also submitted as per policy condition the percentage of depreciation for the damage occurred not exceeding six months is ‘nil’.  In this case the accident took place within 4 months of purchase.  So no depreciation can be calculated against the expenses incurred for the repair of damages.  There is no logic in not allowing the painting and re-fitting charges.  As per the surveyor’s report he has calculated only Rs.6,500/- towards labour charges which is very low.  There is no basis in arriving at that amount towards labour charges.  The claim was filed for the balance amount after accepting the discharge voucher issued by the opposite party.  There is no other way for the respondent while accepting the settled claim the Insurance Company insist for discharge voucher in full and final settlement. The complainant purchased the vehicle for self-employment for his livelihood.  Due to the accident the respondent caused financial loss as well as mental agony.  It is on instructions from the opposite party the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the workshop and after the payment of repair charges the depreciation and policy excess deducted from the expenses incurred for repair charges.  The respondent is entitled for the whole amount claimed in the complaint.

          7.  We have heard both sides in detail.  It is an undisputed fact that the pickup van is a new vehicle and met with an accident which is having a valid policy at the time of accident.  The bill submitted to the opposite party was deducted on the ground of depreciation, policy excess and also against the labour charges.  The surveyor calculated labour charges as Rs.6,500/- against Rs.27,200/-.  It is true that the vehicle had extensive damage to the tune of Rs.1,39,000/- and it is not disputed by the opposite party.  The Insurance Company allowed Rs.91,100/-.  It is true depreciation is calculated as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  There is no reason coming out for deduction of the labour charges in the technical report submitted by the surveyor.  However, we find that the labour charges allowed by the District Forum is to be upheld the amount of Rs.4000/- towards compensation for mental agony is set-aside.

          In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/ opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,700/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings failing which the respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum till realization.

          The order is to comply within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

Sa.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                   APPEAL NO.155/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2014

                                                              sa