By Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P.S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the owner of the Maruti Wagon R bearing registration No.TN-43-Z-8655. He insured this vehicle from 03.03.2017 to 02.03.2018 with the Opposite Party in bumper to bumper scheme (nil depreciation). The Opposite Party assured that he will get full insurance coverage to his vehicle whenever any damage or accident occurred. On 15.02.2018 at about 1 PM, the car met with an accident when it was driving by the Complainant from Gudalloor to Chermbadi. When the vehicle reached near Balavadi curve, suddenly, a cow crossed the road and the Complainant even if, tried to save the life of the cow, he lost the control over the car. So, it hit on a mud wall and capsized which caused a considerable damage to the vehicle. Immediately, the Complainant informed about the damage to the Opposite Party. They allowed to repair the vehicle in New India Maruthi Service Station, Sulthan Bathery and they under took to pay repair charge after the Complainant paid the charge in advance. Thus the Complainant paid Rs.1,61,209/- as repair charge and when he claimed the amount, the Opposite Party has only given Rs.1,33,000/- on 25.6.2018 after a long delay. Therefore, the Complainant put a complaint before the Opposite Party and on 02.07.2018, the Opposite Party forwarded the complaint to Divisional office Calicut and thereafter he was informed that no further amount can be given to him. The Complainant insured his vehicle under the policy of nil depreciation. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay full amount. So, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.28,209/- from the Opposite Party. Even though, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party to get the balance amount, they have not given it. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Party is clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint to get the amount of Rs.28,209/- with 12% interest and Rs.10,000 as compensation with cost.
3. The Opposite Party filed version contenting as follows:- They admitted that the Complainant is the owner of car bearing No. TN-43-Z-8655. They have also admitted that the Complainant insured this vehicle with the Opposite Party. The policy issued was package policy with add on cover nil depreciation. They have no dispute about the accident. The Opposite Party appointed insurance surveyor to assess the actual damage, when they received the claim of the Complainant. The surveyor found Rs.1,36,637/- as actual damage which includes the towing charge of Rs.1,500/- and double entry with respect of a spare parts namely panel instrument for Rs.2,050/- and Rs.2,000/-. As per the policy condition, the compulsory policy excess of Rs.1,000/- plus excess for nil depreciation clause of 5% of claim subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- and maximum of Rs.2,500 are to be deducted from the actual loss. Therefore, Opposite Party deducted Rs.3,500/- towards the policy excess and Rs.1,637 as salvage value. Since, the spot photos were not provided by the Complainant, the towing charge of Rs.1,500/- was not allowed. Hence, this Opposite Party paid Rs.1,33,000/- to the Complainant. He had accepted this amount as full and final settlement. Now the Complainant is estopped from claiming additional amount of Rs.28,209/- with 12% interest. Total claim put forth by the Complainant for Rs.1,61,209/- is excessive. Cost of certain spare parts such as panel instrument and panel assembly front DOD was added twice. Hence, this complaint is to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points to be considered are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
on the part of Opposite Party?
2. Reliefs and cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2, OPW1 OPW2, Exts.A1, A2 series and B1 Series. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident on 15.2.2018 and it got damage. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant insured this vehicle with the Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he incurred an expenses of Rs.1,61,209/- for the repair of the vehicle and thus, according to him, he is entitled to get this amount since he took nil depreciation policy. The grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party paid only Rs.1,33,000/-. So, according to him, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.28,209/- with 12% interest. On the other hand, the Opposite Party took a contention that even though the policy is nil depreciation policy, they are entitled to deduct Rs.1,000/- as policy excess and Rs.2,500/- as excess for nil depreciation. They also contended that they are entitled deduct Rs.1,637/- towards salvage value and Rs.1,500/- as towing charge, because the Complainant has not produced photos of the spot. They further contended that there are duplication in the bills and thus they only bound to give Rs.1,33,000/-. To prove the Complainant’s case, he has given evidence as PW1. He has also examined Mechanic of Maruthi Service Center of Sulthan Bathery as PW2. The Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW2. They have also examined their surveyor as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the work shop bill, Ext. A2(a) is the representation sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party when they denied the full amount. Ext.A2 (b) is the covering letter by which the Opposite Party sent the representation of the Complainant to their Divisional Office. Ext.B1 series contain insurance policy and surveyors report etc.
7. It is evident that the surveyor found Rs.1,33,000/- which according to the Opposite party is entitled by the Complainant towards the insurance claim. The surveyor rejected the claim for Rs.2,000/- which is the price of a spare part namely panel instrument and Rs. 5,219/- which is the price of a spare part namely panel assbly front door as duplicated bills. He deducted Rs.3,500/- towards policy excess, Rs.1,637/- towards salvage value and Rs.1,500/- towards towing expenses. These are challenged by the Complainant. OPW2 deposed that there is duplication of bills and the Complainant allowed to do additional works and replaced some spare parts which are not related to the damage occurred in the accident. Though as per Ext.A1, the total expenses for spare parts including GST is Rs.90,409/-, OPW1 concluded that the Complainant is entitled to get only Rs.79,137/- for spare parts. It is evident that there are duplicate bills such as item numbers 59 and 76 and also 64 and 75. No doubt duplication should be excluded. Therefore, the Complainant is only entitled to get one such amount, though he contended that the Opposite Party is not entitled to deduct anything from the total amount claimed for spare parts. As stated earlier, the Opposite Party contented that the Complainant allowed to do additional works and replaced some spare parts which are not related to the damage occurred in the accident, and so according to them, the Complainant is not entitled to get the price for those spare parts. But, OPW1 admitted that those works are necessary for the repair. So also though the Complainant contended that the Opposite Party is not entitled to deduct anything more, Ext.A1 policy itself shows that the Opposite Party is entitled to deduct Rs.3,500/- towards policy excess. But, here there is no material to prove that the Opposite Party is entitled to deduct Rs.1,637/- towards salvage value and Rs.1,500/- towards towing charge. Therefore, it is to be held that the Opposite Party is only entitled to deduct the duplicate bills amount and policy excess. So they are bound to give the balance mount of Rs.17,490/-, because they are entitle to deduct the duplicate bills amount of Rs.7,219/- and policy excess of Rs. 3,500/-. Since, the Opposite Party denied the valuable right of the Complainant to get the claim for the amount stated above, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Party. So, they are bound to give compensation and cost of the proceedings. The Complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. It is an exorbitant amount. According to this Commission Rs.2,000/- is reasonable and he is entitled to get Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the litigation. So the point is answered accordingly.
8. Point No. 2:- Since, we found point No.1 as discussed above, the Complainant is entitled to get relief sought for in part.
In the result the complaint is allowed partly. The Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.17,490/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand Four hundred and Ninety) to the Complainant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 03.11.2018, the date of the filing of the complaint till realisation. They are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as litigation expenses to the Complainant. It is clarified that the Opposite Party is bound to give these amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of October 2022.
Date of filing :03.11.2018.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. P.V. John. Complainant.
PW2. Vinod. M. Maruthi Mechanic.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. M. Raveendran. Insurance Surveyor.
OPW2. S. Jaya. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:12.04.2018.
A2 (a) Copy of Letter. dt:02.07.2018.
A2(b) Copy of Letter. dt:03.07.2018.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
B1 series (29 Pages) Documents produced by Opposite Party.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
