Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of September 2022
CC 100/16 filed on 15/02/16
Complainant : Binto John, S/o John, Thattil Appadan House,
Chiyyaram, Thrissur – 680 026.
(By Adv. Febin James, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Managing Director, MCP Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Nr. Puzhamballam Road, N.H. 47, Marathakkara P.O.,
Thrissur – 680 306.
2) Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company,
2nd Floor, Global Plaza, Opp. New Railway Platform,
Vanchikulam Road, Poothole, Thrissur – 680 004.
(OP 1 By Adv. A.J. Raman, Thrissur)
OP 2 By Adv. Mariamma K Ittoop, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Summary of the complaint, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant purchased a Hyundai EON car on 26/08/14 from the 1st opposite party and the same day availed from the 2nd opposite party insurance company, a full coverage insurance policy numbered 2204542311006638, that was valid for one year from 26/08/14. The car statedly bore registration No. KL 8BD 9003. Subsequently, on 12/07/15, the car met with an accident at Ollur, Thrissur by colliding against the compound wall of a private person. Consequently, the father of the complainant was injured and hospitalised. The hospital expenses roughly came to Rs.40,000/-. The compound wall of the private party was reconstructed at an expense of Rs.29,000/-. The car after collision was brought to the workshop of the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party informed that the cost of repair would come to Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties made him believe that the expenses he bore towards the treatment of his father and that for re-constructing the wall cannot be claimed under the insurance policy. The complainant also alleges that the 1st opposite party subsequently gave him a bill for Rs.2,65,537/- and the opposite parties made him pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the 1st opposite party, towards the depreciation amount. The complainant argues that the said amount of Rs.70,000/- was illegally collected, from him by the opposite parties. He also claims that he is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his father and Rs.20,000/- towards 3rd party damage. The lawyer notice issued to the opposite parties statedly elicited no result. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.70,000/- alleged to have illegally been collected from him, pay Rs.40,000/- towards reimbursement of the medical expenses he bore and Rs.20,000/- towards 3rd party damage, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Having been noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties entered appearance and contested the complaint.
- Version of the opposite parties :
The 1st opposite party denies all the allegations levelled against them by the complainant. The 1st opposite party states that Rs.1,60,000/- was never informed by them to be the cost of repair for the complainant’s vehicle. They also affirm that the complainant was never asked to pay a sum of Rs.2,65,537/- towards the cost of repair, but a bill for Rs.2,16,537/- was issued to him. They also assert that Rs.70,000/- was collected from the complainant after adjusting from the bill the insurance coverage sum of Rs.1,46,700/- as informed by the 2nd opposite party.
The 2nd opposite party insurer admits that the vehicle in question did have a valid policy issued by them for a period from 26/08/14 to 25/08/15. They also deny the complainant’s averment of their having agreed to pay the whole repair expenses. It is also the 2nd opposite party’s stance that the complainant is not entitled to get back the amount of Rs.70,000/- he paid to the 1st opposite party, as the complainant’s claim has already been settled for a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- to the full satisfaction of the complainant, without any protest from the part of the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant’s claim of medical expenses and that of 3rd party damage are not maintainable.
4) Evidence :
The complainants produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. P1 to P7, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The 1st opposite party produced no documentary evidence on their part, but affidavit and notes of argument. The 2nd opposite party produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exts. R1 to R4, apart from affidavit and notes of argument.
5) Deliberation of facts and evidence of the case :
The Commission has very meticulously delved into the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. P1 is copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 13/01/16 issued to the opposite parties. Ext. P2 & P3 comprise postal receipts and postal acknowledgement cards respectively. Ext. P4 is the receipt dtd. 13/10/15 for Rs.70,000/- issued by the 1st opposite party, in favour of the complainant. Ext. P5 is copy of the Private Car Vehicle Policy No. 2204542311006658 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ext. P6 is print out of the Credit Invoice No. B201503583 dtd.23/09/15. Ext. P7 (series) comprise copies of medical bills and hospital records.
Ext. R1 is copy of the Private Car Package Policy in question (copy of Ext. P5). Ext. R2 is copy of the estimate for repairs of the car in question. Ext. R3 is vehicle repair satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant. Ext. R4 is copy of a net transfer receipt. None of the parties did dispute any of the documents produced.
6) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the claims made by the complainant are maintainable ? Or
whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
the opposite parties ?
If point No.(i) is proved in favour of the complainant ;
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from
the opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
7) Point No.(i)
a) Complainant’s claim relating to reimbursement of expenses relating to medical treatment and reconstruction of wall.
The complainant prays that his expenses relating to the treatment of his father who was injured in the accident i.e. Rs.40,000/- and that relating to the reconstruction of a wall that was damaged in the accident i.e. Rs.20,000/- be indemnified by the opposite parties. Both these are claims of compensation arising out of the use of a vehicle which are to be considered by tribunals constituted under special enactments for the purpose such as the Motor Vehicles Act. The Consumer Protection Act being a general law extending protection to consumers, the complainant’s prayers relating to these two claims do not attract the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the same view by its judgement dtd.09/12/1995 in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs The Consumer Protection Counsel (1995 AIR 1384). Hence we are not in a position to consider the complainant’s prayers relating to indemnification of his expenses relating to medical treatment of his father who was injured in the accident ant that relating to the reconstruction of a wall that was damaged in the accident. The complainant is at liberty to agitate the appropriate Forum / tribunal, for remedies if any, required in this regard.
b) The issue relating to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The 1st opposite party affirms that the bill for repair of the complainant’s car is Rs.2,16,537/-, out of which only Rs.1,46,700/- was informed by the 2nd opposite party insurer to be the insurance coverage amount. But 1st opposite party had hardly produced any evidence at all in respect of the 2nd opposite party’s intimation regarding the insurance coverage amount. But Ext. P4 receipt issued by the 1st opposite party explicitly expresses the receipt of a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant towards “body shop depreciation amount”. The 1st opposite party while collected the said amount from the complainant, had the bounden duty of ascertaining the correctness of the amount of depreciation by way of authoritative intimation in black and white from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party, on the other hand, hardly made any attempt at all to convincingly express before the Commission how they arrived at the figure of Rs.70,000/- for deducting from the complainant’s cost of repair or to point out the provision/policy conditions under which Rs.70,000/- was deducted. Instead, the 2nd opposite party’s sole contention in this connection is that the complainant’s claim is not maintainable as he had received the insurance coverage amount of Rs.1,46,000/- in full satisfaction without any protest. The 2nd opposite party produced the Ext. R3 vehicle repair satisfaction voucher to substantiate their contention in this regard. Both the 1st & the 2nd opposite parties failed miserably to cogently establish the genuineness of the deduction of Rs.70,000/- from the bill of repairs issued to the complainant, which in turn validates the complainant’s contention that he was misrepresented by the opposite parties at the time of settling the claim. Thus it becomes evident that the opposite parties obtained Ext. R3 document from the complainant through the wrongful means of misrepresentation. Therefore, we hold that mere execution of Ext. R3 vehicle satisfaction voucher and acceptance of the offered insurance coverage amount would not estop the complainant from making further claim from the opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the same stance by its judgement dtd. 18/09/08 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mrs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.
The 2nd opposite party’s act of having illegitimately deducted Rs.70,000/- from the insurance coverage amount of the complainant’s claim and the 1st opposite party’s act of having wrongfully collected Rs.70,000/- from the complainant, both constitute unfair trade practice. The said deceitful act of the 2nd opposite party results in deficiency in service on their part, as well. The complainant is legally entitled to receive from the opposite parties a refund of the sum of Rs.70,000/- he paid by Ext. P5 receipt.
Accordingly, Point (i) is proved partly infavour of the complainant.
8) Point No. (ii) & (iii) :
The misdeeds on the part of the opposite parties inflicted on the complainant financial loss, agony and hardship – both mental and physical. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship he underwent and sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) towards refund of the amount illegally collected from him,
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship - both mental and physical, he underwent,
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realisation.
The opposite parties shall comply with the above direction, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 copy of the lawyer notice dtd. 13/01/16 issued to the opposite parties
Ext. P2 & P3 comprise postal receipts and postal acknowledgement cards
respectively.
Ext. P4 receipt dtd. 13/10/15 for Rs.70,000/- issued by the 1st opposite party, in
favour of the complainant.
Ext. P5 copy of the Private Car Vehicle Policy No. 2204542311006658 issued
by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ext. P6 print out of the Credit Invoice No. B201503583 dtd.23/09/15.
Ext. P7 (series) comprise copies of medical bills and hospital records.
2nd Opposite Party’s Exhibits :
Ext. R1 copy of the Private Car Package Policy in question (copy of Ext. P5) Ext. R2 copy of the estimate for repairs of the car in question.
Ext. R3 vehicle repair satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant.
Ext. R4 copy of a net transfer receipt. None of the parties did dispute any of the
documents produced.
Id/- Member
