BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.743/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 4^th May 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay the balance repair charges of Rs.1,79,140/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, in all a total sum of Rs.2,34,140/- with interest at 18% p.a. with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant’s Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.KA-10M-1750 insured with opposite party and valid between 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015, suffered damages, in an accident occurred on 12.04.2015.  A complaint was registered with jurisdictional police and intimated the opposite party.  The car was left for repairs with                      M/s Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd., who demanded Rs.3,40,390/- for the repair charges.  The opposite party paid Rs.1,61,250/- only and the balance of Rs.1,79,140/- has been paid by the complainant and took possession of the car.  The repeated demands to pay the balance repair charges, went in vain.  Hence the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party filed version and admits the motor insurance policy in respect of the vehicle.  The car being 2011 model, the opposite parties liability was as per terms and conditions of the policy.  On receipt of intimation about the occurrence of accident, a surveyor was appointed, and duly conducting the survey, submitted report on 20.08.2015.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,61,250/- after consideration of applicable depreciation as per policy terms and conditions.  The damage to engine was not taken into consideration, as there was no visible damage noticed by the mechanic and damage was due to hydrostatic lock only.  However, such damage was not covered under the policy.
4.     The complainant accepted the amount paid by opposite party, without any protest, as such after full and final settlement of the claim, the complainant is prevented from filing the present complaint.  Hence, there is no liability and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant led evidence by filing affidavit with several documents.  The complainant and the opposite party filed written arguments.  Heard the opposite party counsel. Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
6.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, for not settling the entire claim amount towards repair charges of his damaged car and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
2. What Order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :-  In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant’s Ford Fiesta car bearing registration No.KA-10M-1750 was insured with opposite party and the insurance policy was in force between 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015.
9.   The said car, being driven by son of the complainant, met with an accident on 12.04.2015 and suffered damages.  A complaint was registered with jurisdictional police and the occurrence of accident intimation was given to opposite party. 
10. The complainant left the car with M/s Cauvery Ford Pvt. Ltd., at Mysore, to carry out repairs.  The service centre estimated the damages at Rs.4,70,250/- and later submitted an invoice for a sum of Rs.3,40,390/- for the repair work.  The opposite party paid Rs.1,61,250/- as against the claim of Rs.3,40,390/- under the insurance policy.  The complainant paid Rs.1,79,140/- and took delivery of the car from the service centre.  On failure to pay Rs.1,79,140/- the aggrieved complainant suffered mental agony and hence sought for the reliefs.
11. The opposite party admitted the insurance policy and its validity on the date of occurence of the accident.  The car is of the model 2011, was subject to the extent of liability as per the policy terms and conditions.
12. On receipt of the claim form along with the estimation of the repairer, being very high, immediately arranged an independent licensed surveyor to assess the extent of loss suffered.  Thereafter, the surveyor inspected the vehicle on 16.04.2015 and submitted his report on 20.08.2015 and assessed the loss at Rs.1,61,250/-, after taking into consideration of the depreciation applicable as per terms and conditions of the policy.
13. The engine repair cost was not assessed as there was no visible damage to the engine block, which was caused due to “Hydrostatic lock” and the same was not covered under the policy conditions and hence the supplementary estimation was not considered.  Hence, based on the assessment made by the surveyor, considering the depreciation value, the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.1,61,250/- directly to the repairer.
14. Subsequently, the opposite party filed the present complaint, seeking reliefs.  The vehicle being of 2011 model, the depreciation of 50% in respect of rubber/nylon/plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries and air bags and 30% on fibre components was considered as per the terms of the policy and hence paid a sum of Rs.1,61,250/- and the same was narrated to the complainant in detail.  Thereby, opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency in service and contend that, they are not liable to pay any damages and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
15. The opposite party got examined the licensed independent surveyor by name, Sri Lakshmi Chaitanya as their witness (R.W.2) who revealed that, he has not considered the supplementary estimation for repair of engine at Rs.1,26,334/-, as there was no visible external damages to the engine block, which was caused due to hydrostatic lock and the same was not covered under the policy terms and conditions.  The witness was cross examined by the complainant counsel, wherein the witness revealed that, he conducted inspection based on the estimation given by the repairer and there was no whisper about damage to the engine, hence the same was not considered.   
16. On perusal of the material on record, the repairer, i.e.                   M/s Cauvery Ford Motors Pvt. Ltd. had submitted an estimation of Rs.4,70,250/-, later revised to Rs.3,40,390/- after repairs.  Considering the model of the vehicle, the surveyor, assessed the loss suffered in accordance with the prevailing depreciation in respect of the damaged parts and submitted his report to opposite party on 20.08.2015 at Rs.1,61,250/-.  The same has been paid by opposite party to the repairer.  Subsequently a supplementary estimation for a sum of Rs.1,26,334/- was made quoting repair cost towards the damaged engine black.  The same was not considered as the same was not covered under the policy terms and conditions.  As such, we opine that, there is no lapses on the part of opposite party and are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.  Thereby, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the point No.1 is answered in the negative.

17. Point No.2:- With the above observations in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 4^th May 2018)