SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the OP to pay the repair charge of the vehicle for Rs.3,18,655/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint:
The complainant is the RC owner of the National permit Lorry bearing No.KL-59-M-4867. On 12//3/2017 at 5.14 P.M the lorry met with an accident at Canacona ,Goa and the lorry was insured by the OP at the time of accident. Then the complainant informed the matter to OP and the vehicle produced before PeeVee Industries at Namakkal for repairing. After the repairing work the complainant incurred Rs.4,68,655/- for the estimate amount from Pee Vee Industries Lorry Body Builders,Namakkal,Tamilnadu. Then the complainant had put forward a claim towards the damage caused to the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 59 M-4867 caused in an accident dtd.12/3/2017. But the OP paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant through his bank account. But the complainant is not amenable for the allowed amount. The OP had appointed a licensed surveyor and loss assessor to assess the damage caused to the lorry and according to the survey report and assessment made by the surveyor on the basis of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. The OP has settled the claim with the complainant towards the full and final satisfaction of the claim by paying Rs.1,50,000/-. But the claim of the complainant for a further claim of Rs.3,18,655/- is not allowed. The complainant submits that all the original repair bills are produced to the OP and the OP rejected the claim without any valid reasons, simply stated some baseless allegations. Since the complainant stated that the rejection of claim will cause mental agony and difficulties caused to him. Alleging the above said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice was issued to OP. After receiving notice the OP appeared before the commission and filed his written version . He contended that the OP already paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant as per the licensed surveyor and loss assessor assess the damage caused to the lorry. The OP had settled the claim with the complainant towards the full and final satisfaction of the claim by paying Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any authenticated estimate from the workshop or bills before the surveyor after repairing the vehicle to show that he has spent Rs.3,18,655/- . The documents produced by the complainant before the court are all created one and putting an unlawful claim. So the claim of Rs.3,18,655/- is not maintainable. The claim was processed as per the terms and condition of the insurance policy and on the basis of the report of the licensed surveyor. The OP has paid the entire eligible amount to the complainant on the basis of the survey report and assessment of damages which on the basis of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. So there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Then the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked . On OP’s side DW1 the surveyor/ valuer was examined and Ext.B1 marked.
Issue No.1:
The Complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as PW1 by the OP. The documents Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on his part to substantiate his evidence. According to the complainant, who insured the vehicle to OP and on 12/3/2017 at 5.14 P.M the National permit lorry bearing No.KL-59-M -4867 met with an accident and damage caused to the lorry and the complainant forward a claim of Rs.4,68,655/- to the OP. But the OP allowed Rs.1,50,000/- as per the licensed surveyor assessed the damage caused to the lorry. The other amount of repair charge Rs.3,18,655/- was rejected by the OP. The complainant produced Exts.A3 to A7 , to show that the complainant paid repair charges and other expenses incurred for the vehicle damaged in an accident. In the evidence of PW1 who states that “ ആ തുക കൈപ്പറ്റുന്ന സമയത്ത് നിങ്ങൾ full satisfaction കമ്പനിക്ക് കൊടുത്തു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ?ശരിയല്ല. എന്ർറെ അക്കൌണ്ടിൽ പണം വന്നപ്പോൾ ആണ് ഞാൻ അറിഞ്ഞത്. In re-examination he deposed that വണ്ടിയുടെ പണി എടുപ്പിച്ച original bill കളും labour bill കളും കമ്പനിയിൽ നല്കിയിരുന്നു. Cross with permission-he deposed that “ ഞാൻ ഏജൻറിന്ർറെ കയ്യിലാണ് ബില്ലുകൾ കൊടുത്തത്. കമ്പനിയ്ക്ക് അങ്ങനെ ഒരു bill കൾ കിട്ടിയില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ? ശരിയല്ല. In OP’s side DW1, the surveyor was examined and cross examined by complainant. As per Ext.B1 report produced by Mr.P.S Ragupate examined and he deposed that” provided with work estimate from the workshop PeeVee Industries Namakkal basing on the estimate I prepared the survey report. The major damage on the cabin portion only. But load body damages only minor damages”. On complainant’s side this estimate is marked as Ext.A3 and the claim details noted Rs.4,63,400/-. But in Ext.B1 report the summary of loss assessment prepared by DW1 is only Rs.1,66,600/-. DW1 also stated that the extend of damages, details of loss assessment, mechanical labour, parts at cost, parts at 50% depreciation. The vehicle was re-inspected on 10/5/2017 the materials and parts allowed by him and been replaced. Moreover DW1 reported that the complainant reconstructed the entire new load body assembly, but only allowed actual damaged portion only. He also stated that till date(21/6/2017) the insured repairer did not produced the bill before him.
The OP relied on Ext.B1 and he also paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant as the surveyor assessed value for the damage of the lorry. But Exts.A3 to A7 the bills produced by the complainant(with objection from the side of OP). OP states that there is no deficiency of service on his part. Heard both sides.
On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evidence we the commission hold that the complainant is the insurer who insured the vehicle to OP. The vehicle is damaged due to accident and repair bill (with objection) is also produced. So we are of the considered view that the OP is already paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant. But the actual loss caused to repair the cabin portion-material and labour charge also considered cabin inner mica and tools box broken. Cabin as a whole is pushed back as seen from right. Both side load body wings bent/twisted. RHS wing panel crushed/buckled at front, longitudinal channel buckled, cross wood 3 Nos cracked/broken, hooks and angles bent/buckled. We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue Nos.2&3:
As discussed above the complainant is insured his vehicle KL59M-4867 in the OP. The accident occurred on 12/3/2017 within the insured period. So we hold that the opposite party is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the opposite party is already paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in addition to that the opposite party is liable to pay the repair charge of cabin portion, material and labour charge(Rs.38,000+ Rs.16250/-) having a total amount of Rs.54,250/- to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party in addition to pay the repair charge of material and labour charge of Rs.54250/- to the complainant and along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.54,250/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Copy of the RC
A2-Insurance policy
A3-Estimate details(marked with objections)
A4 to A7-photocopy of Labour bills(subject to proof)
A8-Attested copy of FIR
A7- copy of lawyer notice
A8-Postal receipt
B1- Survey report
PW1-Benny P.V- Complainant
DW1-P.S.Ragupate- witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
