Kerala

Idukki

CC/69/2021

Saji mon P G - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regal Bajaj Service ltd - Opp.Party(s)

23 May 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 17/04/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 23^rd day of May 2023

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.69/2021

Between

Complainant                                :  Sajimon P.G.,

                                                        Parackal House,

                                                        Maniyarankudy P.O.,

                                                         Perumkala 

                                                        (By Adv.P.A.Suhas)                                                   

                                                   An

Opposite Party :                      :  1 . The Manger,

                                                        Regal Bajaj Service, Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

                                                        Vellayamkudy, Kattappana.

                                                  2 .  Jaison,

                                                        Regal Bajaj Service, Service Staff,

                                                        Near KSRTC Bus Stand, Vellayamkudy,  

                                                        Kattappana.

                                                       (Both by Adv.Babichen V.George)

                                                 3 .  The Oriental Insurance Ltd.,

                                                        PB No.166, 3^rd Floor, Mattethra Buildings,

                                                        MC Road, Baker Junction, Kottayam.

                                                           (By Adv.Santhosh Jacob)

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainants allegations against opposite parties are discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . His vehicle Bajaj Pulsar Bike was completely destroyed  during the flood occurred in 2018.  Vehicle was having insurance with 3^rd opposite party

(Cont....2)

-2-

during the period.  He purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party.  Complete damage of his vehicle was occurred due to land sliding happened during the natural calamity.

2 . Vehicle insurance was taken through 1^st opposite party’s institution.  Due to the damage of vehicle, he entrusted the same to 1^st opposite party’s institution as per direction of 2^nd opposite party.  Inspite of phone calls and direct contact, opposite parties have not cared to obtain the insurance coverage and to return the vehicle after repairs.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties agreed clear the insurance matter and they obtained the vehicle from him.

3 .   He came to know about the non- receipt of insurance on receiving letter on 12/03/2019 from insurance company.  While he contacted the opposite parties, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties told him that they will contact and clear the insurance coverage from 3^rd opposite party.  It is the liability of 3^rd opposite party to give insurance amount.

4 . Vehicle is in total loss condition and it resulted in huge monetary loss to him.  He was forced to remit CC of the vehicle in toto.

5 . Act of opposite parties in not settling insurance coverage without any basis and not intimating the reasons therefor are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  He is entitled to get compensation for the same.

So he prayed for the following reliefs.

1 . Grant Rs.1 Lakh as compensation for not clearing insurance and to repair the vehicle.

2 . Direct opposite parties to repair the insured vehicle.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

3 . Direct 3^rd opposite party to give the insured amount to him.

4 . Direct opposite parties to give compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for remitting full amount of CC of vehicle without using the same.

5 . Allow litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-

6 .  Grant such other reliefs this Commission deem fit and proper.

1^st opposite party filed written version on behalf of 2^nd opposite party also.  3^rd opposite party filed separate written version.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties raised the following contentions.

1 . 1^st opposite party is impleaded without any basis. They have no connection with insurance policy and it is with 3^rd opposite party.  They denied the allegation that insurance policy was taken through 1^st opposite party institution.  They also denied the allegation of complainant that they have not repaired the vehicle and to clear the insurance.  They have no liability to settle insurance coverage from 3^rd opposite party.  They understand that as the policy was taken from 3^rd opposite party, it is their liability to give insurance amount.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and as such complainant has no right to get compensation from them.

2 . They are selling Bajaj Motor Cycles and conducting Service Centre and is a Sub Dealer of Royal Motors, Kottayam.  They are not doing any insurance business.  They admitted purchase of vehicle in question and complainant took vehicle insurance from representative of 3^rd  opposite party, who  was present in their showroom.  Premium was collected by 3^rd opposite party only.  Service of many insurance companies are available in their showroom.  It is true that said vehicle was about fully damaged owing to land

(Cont....4)

-4-

 

sliding during flood in 2018.  Complainant brought the vehicle for repair at their showroom.  1^st opposite party informed the matter to 3^rd opposite party and insurance surveyor inspected the vehicle but surveyor was not ready to allow total loss.  Instead, he informed the complainant that insurance claim will be given for repair expenses proportionately considering coverage.  Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to the institution of 1^st opposite party.  But complainant filed complaint against 1^st opposite party in police station and manager of 1^st opposite party attended the police station and matter was amicably settled by signing same in police station.  On the next day itself, complainant approached 1^st opposite party and received from him the amount paid Rs.15,000/- and took back his vehicle.  All matters connected with insurance are between complainant and 3^rd opposite party.  Hence they prayed that complaint may be dismissed.

3^rd opposite party filed separate written version as follows.

1 . 3^rd opposite party denies that alleged incident.  The fact that the Motor Bike No.KL 06 H7841 Bajaj Pulsor destroyed due to the natural calamites in the year of 2018 is false and baseless.  The fact that whether the incident occurred during the natural calamity time, its has to be proved by the applicant, with the date, year and incident of documentary evidence.

2 . 3^rd opposite party denied the valid insurance coverage to the Motor Bike No.KL 06 H 7841 Bajaj Pulsor at the time of alleged incident in the year 2018.  Hence the 3^rd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for the deficiency in service.

 

 

(Cont....5)

-5-

3 . The allegation in the paragraph 4 of the complaint stating the alleged incident has reported to the 3^rd opposite party is not correct and false. 3^rd opposite party has not received any notice or response and certificate shows that the above said Motor Bike involved in the natural calamities in the year of 2018.

4 . As per the information received from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties they are ready to repair or service the damaged Motor Bike in their own service centre and they are directed to the applicant to produce the damaged Motor Bike before the service centre  of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties service centre with the valid certificate of Motor Bike and alleged incident but the applicant negligently did not produce the Bike before the service centre.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and the applicant is not liable to get any compensation as per the complaint filed by him before the Hon’ble Consumer disputes Redressal Commission.

So, it prayed for dismissal of complaint with their costs.

Complainant was not regular in attending the Commission.  No representation or application was filed on his behalf from 17/11/2021.  On certain postings, there was representation on his behalf.  Though there was specific direction to complainant to be present and ready for evidence on 22/09/2022 by proceedings dated 31/08/2022, complainant was absent on that day.  No application was filed and not represented also.  5 documents already filed were marked as Exts. P1 to P5 by Commission and posted the case for evidence of opposite parties.  On 21/12/2022, application filed to re-open the evidence of complainant.   On that day complainant was directed to be present in person on 06/02/2023.  But he has not appeared and no representation made on his behalf.  As he was not present  on that day and

(Cont....6)

-6-

subsequent posting on 22/03/2023 complainant’s evidence was closed and posted for evidence of opposite parties and the case stood adjourned to 10/04/2023.  On that also, complainant was absent and counsel filed application stating that he could not contact complainant over phone and therefore he prayed to grant time for the production of complainant which was dismissed.

1^st to 3^rd Opposite parties also sought time, but prayer was declined as no reasons were given.  Case was taken for orders.

As the complainant was not vigilant in prosecuting the matter in spite of chances granted to him, we are inclined to dispose of the case with the materials available on record.  Documents marked on the side of complainant are as follows.

1 . Ext.P1 – Copy of certificate registration of Bajaj Pulsor Bike having Reg. No.KL-06-H-7841.

2 . Ext.P2 – Copy of letter dated 30/09/2019 by service in charge of Regal Motors, Kattappana addressed to RTO, Idukki.

3 . Ext.P3 – Letter dated 12/03/2019 sent by one Anshath Hussain, Insurance Surveyor of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., addressed to complainant.

4 . Ext.P4 – Certificate dated 19/12/2018 of Village Officer, Idukki stating that complainant’s bike was destroyed during natural calamity.

5 . Ext.P5 – Insurance policy No.441300/31/2018/9646 issued by Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., to complainant.

No oral or documental evidence was adduced by opposite parties. We have examined the pleadings of both sides and perused the documents produced by complainant.   On a consideration of the same, following points arise for consideration:-

                                                                                                  (Cont....7)

-7-

1 . Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2 . If so, for what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

3 . Reliefs and costs?

Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together:-

          On going through the averments of complainant, it is seen that he has not mentioned the date of damage of the vehicle.  He casually stated that it was fully damaged during flood occurred in 2018.  As per Ext.P1, insurance policy period of insurance was from 08/09/2017 to 07/09/2018.  As the correct date of damage is not mentioned, it is not ascertainable whether there was valid insurance on the date of policy.  Insurance surveyor has stated that he had inspected the damaged vehicle on 22/12/2018 at Regal Bajaj,          Kattappana.  But after repeated request made, documents were received only on 04/03/2019 by courier.  So he informed the repairer to start repair work and inform him for re-inspection after repair work.  But 1^st opposite party has not informed him.  Therefore surveyor requested the complainant to produce the vehicle after repair work for inspection within 10 days from the date of letter.   Complainant has no case that he has produced the repaired bike as requested by surveyor.  In Ext.P2, it is seen that there is erasing of 2 words at 2 portions with whitener.  Original is not produced.   In Ext.P5 also date of damage of vehicle is not mentioned.  While considering this, we find that the contention of 3^rd opposite party regarding the damage of the vehicle in natural calamity in 2018 is false is having force. As rightly contended by 3^rd opposite party, it is the duty of complainant to prove the incident with date and evidence thereof.  Similarly 3^rd opposite party  denied the insurance coverage during the alleged insurance.  It also denied the receipt of any notice of

 

(Cont....8)

-8-

response and certificate showing the damage during natural calamity in 2018.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties contended that they have contacted the insurance company and surveyor inspected the vehicle and was not ready to allow the damage as total loss.  As per his direction to complainant, it was directed to repair the vehicle and proportionate expense will be given considering the insurance coverage.  Accordingly, complainant entrusted Rs.15,000/- to 1^st  opposite party’s institution.  Later complainant filed complaint before police and as per the terms arrived there, they have refunded the amount paid and the bike was taken back by the complainant.  They totally deny their liability for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and therefore they stated that they have no  liability to pay compensation to complainant.  As a customer they have informed the damage of vehicle to 3^rd opposite party.  The contention of 3^rd opposite party  regarding non-receipt of information regarding damage of vehicle is found to be not correct.  Surveyor had marked copy of Ext.P3 to 3^rd opposite party’s Divisional Office, Kottayam. Ext.P4 is seen issued for production before New India Assurance Company, which cannot be accepted in this case as Oriental Insurance Company is arrayed as 3^rd opposite party.  Complainant has not taken out Commission to ascertain the actual damage.  He has not proved the date of occurrence of damage also.  He has no case that he had contacted the insurance company at the time of incident or thereafter.  In the above circumstances, it is not ascertainable whether there was valid insurance on the date of damage/loss.  Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  In such a situation, we are of the considered view that liability cannot be fastened on 3^rd opposite party.  As complainant has not rebutted the contention of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties regarding the refund of amount paid for repair and taken back of his vehicle, liability cannot be fastened on them also for not conducting repair work.   1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have no liability to make arrangements for getting insurance coverage. 

(Cont....9)

-9-

In the above circumstances we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties also.    Hence 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also not liable to pay compensation or other amount to the complainant.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered as above.

Point No.3

In the light of our findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we find that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.

In the result, we are of the considered view that this complaint is having no merits and therefore, we dismiss the complaint without any order as to costs.

Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 23^rd  day of May 2023.

 

                                                                                              Sd/- 

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                 SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                        SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont....10)

-10-

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Copy of certificate registration of Bajaj Pulsor Bike having

               Reg. No.KL-06-H-7841.

Ext.P2 – Copy of letter dated 30/09/2019 by service in charge of Regal

                Motors, Kattappana addressed to RTO, Idukki.

Ext.P3 – Letter dated 12/03/2019 sent by one Anshath Hussain, Insurance

               Surveyor of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., addressed to complainant.

Ext.P4 –  Certificate dated 19/12/2018 of Village Officer, Idukki stating that

                complainant’s bike was lost during natural calamity.

Ext.P5 – Insurance policy No.441300/31/20188/9646 issued by Oriental

               Insurance Co.Ltd., to complainant.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                              Forwarded by Order  

 

 

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR