DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023
Filed on: 04/09/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C. C. No. 337/2019
COMPLAINANT
Krishnaprasad G., S/o. Gopinath R., Venmayil House, Manakkad P.O., Pin 685608, Thodupuzha
Between
OPPOSITE PARTY:
1. M/s. GMA Pinnacle Automobiles (P) Ltd., Door No. 7/447-B1, Sea Port-Air Port Road, Thrikkakkara P.O., Kakkanad, Pin 682030. Rep. by its Authorized Officer
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hosto Centre, 1st Floor, No. 43, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Opp. Imperial Restaurant, Nangalore 560052. Rep. by its Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. Ajith Kumar Varma)
3. Vishnu Varma, Service Advisor, M/s. GMA Pinnacle Automobiles (P) Ltd., Door No. 7/447-B1, Sea Port-Air Port Road, Thrikkakkara P.O., Kakkanad, Pin 682030.
(OP No. 1 & 3 Rep. by Adv. C. Harikumar, Thaliyath Building, St. Benedict Road, Kacheripady, Cochin 682018)
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachandran, Member:
This complaint is filed by Sri. Krishnaprasad G. stating that he is an Officer in Merchant Navy and he had purchased a Jeep Compass SUV bearing Reg. No. KL38-G-4666. The 1st opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle, 2nd opposite party is the Insurance agency and 3rd opposite party is the service advisor of 1st opposite party. The complainant states that while on his way at Koratty on 27/04/2019 at 9 a.m. on Ernakulam-Thrissur Highway his vehicle met with an accident, the Maruti Alto car which caused the accident did not stop and fledged the scene. The complainant had taken the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party, service centre of 1st opposite party at Kakkanad, 41 k.m. away from the point of accident. The vehicle was in running condition.
The 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that the repair cost of the vehicle would be Rs.50,000/- and complainant informed them that the vehicle is insured with Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. They assured that the complainant had to be bear only the compulsory insurance service charges which would come around Rs.5,000/-. The complainant further states that he had never received any communication regarding the inspection by the Surveyor or that from the opposite party regarding the assessment of the vehicle.
On 08/05/2019 the complainant received a call from the 1st opposite party intimating him that the vehicle is ready for delivery. The total cost is Rs.2,73,920. They told that the insurance would cover only Rs.1,76,113/- and the balance amount Rs.97,807/- has to be paid by the complainant. Complainant states that to his utter shock he had paid the amount of Rs.97,807/- and on 10/05/2019 he had gone to the 1st opposite party and asked about the excess bill. The complainant did not get any reply and alleges that the opposite party had insulted him. The complainant states that he is entitled to get back Rs.97,807/- which he had paid beside the insurance amount. Therefore he filed this complaint to get an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.97,807/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
Upon notice from this Commission opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 1st and 3rd opposite parties filed their joint version in which they stated that the statement of the complainant that he had purchased the above reference vehicle is correct and the fact that the vehicle was brought to the service centre of 1st opposite party is also correct saying that the complainant had informed the 3rd opposite party that the vehicle is having a bumper to bumper policy. Opposite party denied that they have not informed the estimated insurance charge is Rs.50,000/- and that the compulsory insurance charge of Rs.5,000/- is also denied by the opposite party. The real fact is that the amount for the repair of the vehicle on the basis of external damage was assessed as Rs.1,00,000/- which is informed to the complainant. It was assessed only after the survey approval and the survey itself is taken place after removing the panel and additional damages were assessed. The averment of the complainant that he had not received any communication is not correct. The complainant had visited the Service Centre and after inspection of the documents, the 1st opposite party had informed the complainant regarding time when the Surveyor would inspect the vehicle. The complainant had taken the policy without understanding the terms of the policy. After the preparation of the bill for the expected work which was communicated to the complainant it was sent to the Insurance Co. for approval. This was also intimated to the complainant and 1st and 3rd opposite parties denied all the other allegations framed against them by the complainant.
The 2nd opposite party accepted that vehicle No. KL38-G4666 was insured by a Private Car Package Policy on 24/08/2019 is true. The averment of the complainant that the vehicle was taken to the Service Centre of the 1st opposite party is also true. As regarding to the other averments except which are answered by 2nd opposite party has been denied by them. Further 2nd opposite party stated that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant since the 2nd opposite party had assessed the loss by the Surveyor of the vehicle by the approved Surveyor who had assessed the payable loss at Rs.1,76,113/-. This amount has been paid to the repairer.
On going through all the documents produced by either side and on verification of facts stated, the following points are to be analysed.
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
ii. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties and the quantum of compensation entitled for the complainant?
iii. Reliefs and costs?
The accident caused to the vehicle has not been disputed and the service and repairs for which is entrusted has also not disputed by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. The complainant had failed to prove that there is a bumper to bumper policy for the alleged vehicle covering accident insurance. Moreover the amount assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the 3rd opposite party had been paid to the 1st opposite party. Moreover the complainant had not adduced even an iota of evidence to prove that the opposite parties had informed the complainant that the repair cost will come only to Rs.50,000/- as in the case may be. In this circumstance the complainant had failed to establish his case on merit and Point No. 1 is proved against the complainant and hence we have not analysed Point No. 2 and 3, and therefore the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day of March, 2023
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 337/2019
Order Date: 30/03/2023
