DATE OF FILING : 20.6.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  October,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.175/2016

Between

Complainants       :  1.   Aksa V. Xavier, D/o. Xavier,

     Villamthanath House,

     Adimali, Idukki. 

2.  Xavier, S/o. Xavier,

    Villamthanath House,

     Adimali, Idukki. 

    (Both by Adv:  A. Ajithkumar)

And

Opposite Party                                          :     The United India Insurance Company,

  Kannattu Shopping Complex,

  Kallarkutti Road, Adimali,  Idukki.

  Represented by the Branch Manager.

(By Adv:  Sony George)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

          First  complainant  is the owner of a Hyundai Verna car having Reg. No.KL-68-2002.  This vehicle was having a valid insurance policy with opposite party for the period commencing from 19.3.2015 to 18.3.2016.  While so, on 15.1.2016, this vehicle was met with an accident on 15.1.2016 at Velikkal in Bangalore – Salem road.  A vehicle bearing No.TN-05-AT-4932 hit on the back side of the vehicle and the vehicle has caused heavy damages.  Immediately the matter was intimated to Thoppur police station in Karnataka and the police registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle.  From the place of accident the vehicle was towed to the Hyundai service centre, Muvattupuzha.

          The complainant further averred that due to the accident, the body shell of the car was totally damaged.  After inspection, the workshop authorities prepared an estimate for repair of the vehicle and reported that an amount of Rs.5,35,749/- will come for the repair works and entrusted the estimate to the opposite party.  But the opposite party raised objection in the estimate on the 

(cont.....2)

-  2  -

reason that the body shell of the vehicle can be repaired and no need of replacing it.  Due to the objection raised by the opposite party company, the vehicle was kept in the workshop for more than 5 months and the complainant is not in a position to get back the vehicle with its prior condition.  Since the vehicle is having valid package policy, opposite party is bound to sanction the claim and its denial is a gross deficiency in their service.

          The vehicle was financed with Mahindra and Mahindra financiers.  Due to the accident, there was some dues in its payment and the finance company possessed the vehicle from the workshop.

          Due to the delay in sanctioning the claim of the vehicle, from the side of the opposite party, the complainant caused much mental and financial loss even the loss of the vehicle itself.  Hence the complainant filed this petition against the opposite party company for allowing the reliefs such as to direct the opposite party company to sanction the insurance claim and also for compensation and cost.

          Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In the version, opposite party contended that after the vehicle was put in workshop, the opposite party inspected the vehicle on 4.2.2016 and prepared a preliminary survey report showing all the damages caused to the vehicle.  Before the survey, that is, on 2.2.2016, the workshop authorities prepared estimate stated above.  The opposite party was always ready and willing for making payment of the cost of repairing as per the terms of the policy.  The petitioner, surveyor and the workshop men made  joint discussion and agreed that the vehicle can be repaired by repairing its body shell by renewing body panels instead of replacing entire body shell assembly.  The surveyor and the repairer contacted the petitioner for staring the repair work, but the petitioner did not co-operate it and disagreed with the repair of the body shell of the vehicle.  Therefore the service agent did not dismantle the car and hence the surveyor could not assess the actual damage of the vehicle.  While the surveyor has conducted the inspection, it is seen that the front and rear glass of the vehicle were not broken.  If the body shell assembly having any damages, the glasses should have been broken.  Moreover, damaged rear body panels were available in a dealer point.  The opposite party further contended that only after 

(cont.....3)

-  3  -

getting the final repairing bill from the workshop, the opposite party can settle the claim amount.  There is no question of bargaining of the claim amount before the completion of the work.  Since the petitioner did not turn back, the surveyor has sent a registered notice to the 1st complainant on 22.4.2016.  The opposite party further contended that it is false to state that the finance  company took vehicle from the workshop.  The complainant has taken away the vehicle from the workshop.  Thereafter on 22.4.2016, the workshop authorities has send a notice to the insurance surveyor stating that, since the complainant disagreed to repair the body shell, they did not dismantle the vehicle and informed that the vehicle was released from the garage by the petitioner.  The fact being so, there is no deficiency in service has happened from the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents.  Complainant filed 5 documents which were marked as Ext.P1 to P5.  Ext.P1 is the copy of insurance policy, Ext.P2 is the FIR ledger by the Tamil Nadu police, Ext.P3 is the photographs of the damaged vehicle, Ext.P4 is the copy of repair estimate and Ext.P5 is the copy of RC book.  No oral evidence adduced.

          From the defence side, Mr.Saji E.G, licenced surveyor and Eldose John, Body shop in charge of Popular Motor world were examined as DWs1 and 2 respectively and Exts.R1 to R8 marked.  Ext.R1 is the copy of insurance certificate, Ext.R2 is the copy of e-mail  communication between the surveyor and workshop authorities.  Ext.R3 is the copy of letter issued by the surveyor to the 1st complainant dated 22.4.2016.  Exts.R4 and  R5 are the postal receipts and AD Card.  Ext.R6 is the motor claim form.  Ext.R7 is the copy of repair estimate.  Ext.R8 is the photographs of vehicle in question.

          Heard both sides in detail.

          Point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          The POINT :-  We have heard the  counsels of both sides and gone through the evidence on record.  It is an admitted fact that vehicle met with an accident and caused heavy damages and intimated the matter to the local police 

(cont.....4)

-  4  -

as well as the insurance company.  Immediately after getting information, 1st opposite party conducted preliminary survey.  As per the version of the complainant, the body shell of the vehicle was totally damaged and it is to be replaced and the opposite party was reluctant to do so.  There arised some conflicts related to the repair of the vehicle, between the complainant and the opposite party insurance company.  The version of the opposite party in this regard is that, the complainant was disagreed to dismantle the vehicle to assess the actual damages and also the complainant was not co-operated to repair the body shell of the vehicle.  Due to the latches from the part of the complainant, the work was not started and the completion bill was not reached the office of the opposite party.  Only after getting the final bill from the workshop, the opposite party can settle the claim amount.

          The learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out a main issue that, before starting the repair works or before assessing the actual damage of the vehicle by dismantling it, the complainant took away the vehicle from the workshop.  Thereafter the workshop had sent a letter to the surveyor and intimated the matter of release of the vehicle from their custody.  This matter is specifically admitted by the complainant also.  But the version of the complainant is that, the vehicle was possessed by the financier from the workshop.

          On appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties, the Forum found that, the complainant took away the vehicle from the custody of the workshop and hence the opposite party was not in a position to assess the actual damages.  At this juncture, it is very pertinent to consider the version of opposite party that, only after getting the final repair bills, they can settle the claim amount.  Here actually what is happened is that, without conducting a final survey or before assessing the actual damage of the vehicle, the complainant took away it from the custody of workshop and hence the opposite party is is not in a position to honour the claim of the complainant.  This matter is specifically intimated to the complainant by the surveyor through Ext.R3 notice.  Eventhough the notice was accepted by the complainant, not take any steps for producing the vehicle before the surveyor or the workshop.  Hence under the above said circumstances, the complainant is having no right to blame the opposite party for non-sanctioning of the vehicle claim.       (cont.....5)

-  5  -

On the basis of the above  discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, no deficiency has been attributed against the opposite party in this matter, because the complainant is miserably failed to perform his part.

Hence the complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018

                                                                                     Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

     Sd/- 

       SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  E.S. Saji.

DW2              -  Eldhose John.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -   copy of insurance policy, 

Ext.P2          -  FIR ledger by the Tamil Nadu police. 

Ext.P3          -  photographs of the damaged vehicle. 

Ext.P4          -  copy of repair estimate. 

Ext.P5          -  copy of RC book. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  copy of insurance certificate, 

Ext.R2          - copy of e-mail  communication between the surveyor 

     and workshop authorities.  

Ext.R3         -  copy of letter issued by the surveyor to the 1st complainant 

     dated 22.4.2016.  

Exts.R4 and  R5 - postal receipts and AD Card.  

Ext.R6          -  motor claim form.  

Ext.R7          -  copy of repair estimate.  

Ext.R8          -  photographs of vehicle in question.