KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No 461/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 07.02.2012
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
City Workshop, Opposite South Gate of Shipyard,
M.G.Road, Cochin-15
Rep. by Accounts Officer
Sri. M.A. Thomas
for the Chief Executive Officer
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C.S. Rajmohan & P.K. Aboobacker)
RESPONDENTS
1. Mariyamma,
Santhi Maria, Opposite to Nicholos Church,
Karumadi P.O., Karumadi Village,
Ambalappuzha Panchayath, Alappuzha District.
2. Jose Thomas, S/o C.C. Thomas,
Santhi Maria, Opposite to Nicholos Church,
Karumadi P.O., Karumadi Village,
Ambalappuzha Panchayath, Alappuzha District.
3. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Registered and Corporate Office,
2nd Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25 Kasthurba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 100001,
Now known as
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, 1st Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – Pin: 110070 Represented by
it’s General Manager(Service Division)
4. Maruti Suzuki Ltd,
Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Tutus Tower, N.H.47, Bye Pass,
Palarivattom, Kochi -24
Rep. by it’s Regional Service Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri.K. Dharmarajan & S. Navajothi)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in CC. No. 08/08. The appellants are the opposite parties 2&3, those who prefers this appeal under the directions of the Forum below that directed the 3rd opposite party to pay Rs. 69,000/- to the first complainant and the opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- The respondents are the complainants and other opposite parties respectively. Brief of the case is that the first respondent/complainant is the registered owner of the Maruthi Car and the second complainant is her husband, who was using the car. The same was insured with the 3rd opposite party. On 22.6.2007, the vehicle was driving by the second complainant, the front portion of the car caught fire and the said accident was duly intimated to the first , second and 4th opposite parties. On 25.6.07, at the instance of the second opposite party and 4th opposite parties, the vehicle was taken to the work shop of the 4th opposite party. The first, second and 3rd opposite parties including 4th opposite party had jointly made the complainant to believe that the total conveyance of the complainant that the total estimate cost of the repair work is Rs. 69,000/- and the said amount will be reimburse by the 3rd opposite party. On 27.6.2007, the 4th opposite party obtained Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant as advance towards the cost of the repair. The 4th opposite party had assured the complainant that the work would be completed within 10,11.2007. The 4th opposite party did not keep their word and due to their negligence and deficiency in service with the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. The second and 4th opposite party had issued the bill for an exorbitant amount as the charge of the repair claimed to have been effected in the vehicle and cost of that complaint had sustained untold mental agony. Hence the complaint.
The first, second and 3rd opposite parties had contended in their written version that the complainant itself is bad for non jointer of parties since the complainant had not impleaded M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd in the array of opposite parties. Further contentions of the appellants were that the complainant had never entered to any sort of contract with the second opposite party or the 4th opposite parties. The complainant had suppressed material facts. Actually the fire could have been occurred from the LPG fittings. The 4th opposite party had never furnished to the complainant an estimate of Rs. 69,000/- and they have never given any assurance to the complainant as such there is no obligation on the part of the opposite parties. According to the second and 3rd opposite parties the estimate charge of the repairing work which was calculated around Rs. 1,28,000/- and the same was duly intimated to the complainant and the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had issued a letter dated 18.07.2007 to the complainant requesting him to produce the concerned records furnishing actual reasons for the fire. But the complainant did not respond to the said letter. The opposite parties had never caused the second complainant to believe that the probable cost of the repair would be Rs. 69,000/- The 3rd opposite party had never pressed to the complainant that the said amount would be reimbursed by it. The Insurance claim would only be settled in duly with terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, that too by the Insurance company. The 3rd opposite party is not insurance Company (Insurer) hence the prayer that is unsustainable.
The evidence consisted or Ext. A1 to A18 from the part of the complainant and the complainant examined as pw1. The opposite parties produced Ext. B1 and Ext. B2.
The Forum below found that the actual insurance company is the Bajaj Allianz and they did not impleaded. It is pertinent to note that Pw1 assailed in Cross examination that in the policy certificate along with Bajaj Allianz, it is also named as Maruthi Insurance as appellant by Ext. B1. Thus on a closer scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is a manifest that there is substance in the case of the complainant unless to say the contention of the opposite party must fail. The Forum below in continuation of this view allowed the complaint and passed the above impugned order.
The appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The main contentions of the appellants that the Forum below passed the order without looking the basic principle of law. This dispute arised from a claim on an insurance which insured by the complainant from an insurance company known as Bajaj Allianz . The complainants want to get the claim from the Insurance company for the fire accident for the car of the complainant. The complainants have no case that they approached to the Insurance company on any occasion. In the version of the opposite parties it is stated that the Insurance Company is a necessary party. The complainants did not implead the Insurance company as a necessary party in the case. The Forum below did not raised this as a point. The Forum below passed the order without hearing the Insurance Company. It is illegal and irregular. The counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on the grounds of Appeal Memorandum and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below by allowing this appeal.
This Commission heard in detail and perused the evidence available in the case bundle and seeing that the Forum below did not discussed the evidence adduced by both sides and passed the order without the necessary party like the Insurance Company. There is no doubt that, it is an irregular and illegal order. The Forum below forgot that they are a fact finding body. As per the provision of law, the necessary and appropriate party is the Bajaj Insurance Company. They are absent in this case. It is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. It is liable to be set aside. Both counsels prayed that to send back the case to the Forum below for fresh trial after given an opportunity to implead the Insurance Company as a necessary party in this suit.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. This case remanded back to the Forum below for fresh disposal, after given opportunity to the opposite parties to implead the necessary parties and to adduce necessary evidence, this appeal is disposed and answered one by one accordingly. No cost ordered. Hence we do so.
The office is direct to forward the L.C.R. to the Forum below immediately and the opposite parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 19th March 2012.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
