KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Dated this the 30th April 2014
PRESENT
HON.JUSTICE.SHRI.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
APPEAL NOS.966/12 & 44/13
APPEAL NO.966/12
Hyundai Motors India Ltd,
NP-54, Developed Plot
Ekkaduthangal, Thiruvika - Appellant
Industries Estate, Chennai-600032.
(By Adv: Sri. Rakesh Thampan)
Vs.
1. Sri.Girish.S,
Aiswarya, Cheruthana P.O,
Karthikappally Taluk,
Alappuzha District.
2. The Manager,
Popular Motors World Pvt. Limited,
Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.
- Respondents
3. Visal Dev, Kallungal
Klappana, Kollam.
4. The Manager, ICICI Lombard
General Insurance, Zenith House,
Kesava Rao Khadi Marg,
Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 3.
(R4 By Adv:Sri.Prasannakumaran Nair)
APPEAL NO.44/13
The Manager,
Popular Hyundai,
M/s Popular Motor World Pvt. Limited, - Appellant
Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv: Sri. George Cheriyan Karippaparambil)
Vs.
1. Sri.Girish.S,
Aiswarya, Cheruthana P.O,
Karthikappally Taluk,
Alappuzha District.
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd,
NP-54, Developed Plot
Ekkaduthangal, Thiruvika
Industries Estate, Chennai-600032.
(By Adv. Sri.C.S.Rajmohan)
- Respondents
3. Visal Dev, Kallungal
Klappana, Kollam.
4. The Manager, ICICI Lombard
General Insurance, Zenith House,
Kesava Rao Khadi Marg,
Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 3.
(R4 By Adv:Sri.Prasannakumaran Nair)
JUDGMENT
HON.JUSTICE.SHRI.P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
Both these appeals arise out of the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzhain C.C.123/2011 dated August 27, 2012. Appeal 966/12 is by first opposite party and appeal 44/13 is by the 2nd opposite party.
The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
Complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro GL car bearing regn.No.KL 29C/3207 from second opposite party for Rs.3,70,000/- on 06/11/2010. The second opposite party did not provide the car with ATS power windows. Therefore on 21/12/2010 3rd opposite party who is an employee of 2nd opposite party took the vehicle for first service and for providing the car with power windows. When the car reached at Kayamkulam it met with an accident and the car was completely damaged. The request of the complainant to replace the damaged car with a new one was rejected by 2nd opposite party. The car was insured with the 4th opposite party, M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Mumbai.
The 1st opposite party is M/S.Hyundai Motors Ltd, Chennai. They in their version contented that they are not responsible for the accident and that therefore they are unnecessary party to the proceedings.
The 2nd opposite party is M/s Popular Motor World Private Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram. They in their version admitted the accident but contented that as the vehicle is insured with 4th opposite party, the complainant can recover the amount from 4th opposite party.
The 3rd opposite party who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not file any separate version. The 4th opposite party is M/S.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd, Mumbai represented by its Manager. He in his version admitted the policy and also the accident. According to them the Surveyor has assessed the damages as Rs.1,34,108.74/- only and that therefore they are liable to pay only that amount.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext A1 to Ext.A5 and opposite parties have filed proof affidavit but did not produce any documents before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum directed the opposite party 1 to 3 to replace the damaged car with a new one and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.3,000/- with interest. The 1st opposite party has filed the appeal 966/12 and 2nd opposite party filed the appeal 44/13 challenging the said order of the Forum.
Heard counsels appearing for appellants in both the appeals and the counsel for the complainant.
The following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party?
2. Whether the 1st opposite party is liable?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
It is admitted that 2nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party and that complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro Car bearing Regn.No KL29C/3207 on 06/11/2010 which met with an accident on 21/12/2010 while driven by 3rd opposite party who is an employee of 2nd opposite party. It is also not disputed that the car was insured with 4th opposite party company.
The first question for consideration whether the first opposite party is liable. The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer. Admittedly the 1st opposite party is not responsible for the accident. Therefore we are of the view that 1st opposite party is an unnecessary party to these proceedings and that they are not liable to compensate the complaint. That being so appeal 966/12 filed by the 1st opposite party has to be allowed and the complaint as against the 1st opposite party has to be dismissed.
The next point to be decided is whether the Forum is justified in ordering replacement of the damaged car. It is admitted that the car was insured with the 4th opposite party. That being so complainant is entitled to claim the insured amount from 4th opposite party. Therefore the Forum is not justified in ordering replacement of car.
Now what remains to be considered is, what is the compensation the complainantt is entitled to. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are primarily liable. The car is insured with the 4th opposite party who is bound to indemnify opposite parties 2 and 3. The car is a brand new one. That being so the complainant is entitled to the IDV of the vehicle shown in the policy which is Rs.3,18,860/-.
In the result Appeal 966/12 filed by first opposite party is allowed. It is found that 1st opposite party is not liable to compensate the complaint. The order of the Forum so far it is against 1st opposite party is set aside and the complaint is dismissed as against the first opposite party.
A44/13 filed by 2nd opposite party is allowed in part and the impugned order of the Forum is modified as follows:
The 4th opposite party shall pay Rs.3,18,860/- being the IDV of the damaged vehicle to complainant with interest 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. As interest is awarded at 12%per annum no separate compensation is awarded.
JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT
V.V. JOSE : MEMBER
VL.
