IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 17th day of February, 2022
Filed on 07.12.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.SanthoshKumar.BSc. LLB (President)
2. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.315/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Anilkumar P.R The Branch Manager
Anjana United India Insurance
Chennithala P.O. Changanacherry Branch
Mavelikkara, Alappuzha- 690105 Thottuparambil Building
2nd floor, head post office Jn.
Changanacherry, Kottayam-686101
(Adv.Sri.Thomson Pulthakady)
O R D E R
SMT.P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)
This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant met with an accident and intimated to the opposite party on 09.06.2020. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party on the same day itself and the vehicle was inspected at the workshop of M/s Purackal Honda, Changanassrry, the authorized dealer of Honda Motorcycle and scooter India Pvt.Ltd. Since the vehicle was newly launched one and there were restrictions on transporting goods due to covid-19, the required parts for replacing damaged ones was not available with them. The surveyor informed that as he has taken photographs of the damaged parts, the claim is treated as under process and hence a preliminary estimate was submitted for approval at opposite party. The damaged items could be arranged on 06.08.2020 only by M/s Purackal Honda. On opening the vehicle for repairs, it was reported by the dealer that one of the locks of meter box assembly is in broken condition and it took an additional day for the delivery of the vehicle. The said matter was intimated to the surveyor. On 07.08.2020 the amount settled for Rs.10,750/- and thereafter contacted the surveyor and enquired whether he needs to inspect the vehicle, but informed that it is not necessary and instructed to collect new quotation including meter assembly. On 10.08.2020 the complainant had paid the bill amount and new quotation were handed over at opposite party.
2. On 15.08.2020 the opposite party sent message stating that Rs.9614/- is approved as settlement. As the said amount was not been transferred to the account of complainant, he enquired at opposite party’s office on 07.09.2020, there they said that the details of bank account was not available with them, though the same was given along with claim application. Thereafter on 09-09-2020 the complainant received SMS stating that Rs.6464/- is approved for settlement. On enquiry the surveyor informed that the amount of meter assembly was deducted as it was not there in the initial list and opposite party informed that the cost of meter assembly cannot be admitted as it was not seen damaged in the photograph taken on 09.06.2020. The damage occurred to the meter assembly is on its locks which could be seen only on opening the covers and not on its surface.
3. The said matter was brought to the notice of customer care department of opposite party on 24.08.2020, but no response. There after a complaint lodged with National Consumer Helpline on 08.10.2020 and 11.11.2020, United India Insurance responded with a letter rejecting the claim of complainant indicating that the meter was working in the photograph taken on 09.06.2020. The issue was with one of the locks holding the meter was broken which was noticed only at the time of carrying out the repair of the damage. Hence this complaint seeking reliefs to get refund of Rs.3150/- and compensation Rs.10,000/- from opposite party.
4. Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
Complaint is not maintainable. The United India Insurance Co. being a necessary party the complaint without joining the said company is not maintainable.
5. The point in dispute is with respect to Rs.3164/- pertaining to the cost of meter assembly. But no document was produced to show that the meter assembly was damaged. Though surveyor of the opposite party made a thorough check and inspection of the vehicle, he has not reported any damage on this part and in this circumstance the said claim on this matter had been rejected by opposite party. The statement that the dispute part of the vehicle was not opened it being locked etc. are not correct. There was no latches or omission or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled compensation as claimed in the complaint?
- Reliefs and cost?
7. Evidence in this complaint consists oral evidence of PW1and Ext.A1 to A8 on the side of complainant and oral evidence of RW1 andEx.B1, B2 series and B3 from the side of opposite party. Heard both sides.
8. Point No.1 to 3
PW1, the complainant filed affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 to A8. Ext.A1 is the policy document regarding the vehicle. Ext.A2, A5 and A6 are the copy of screenshot of SMS sent by opposite party to the complainant on 3 occasions. Ext.A3 is the bill issued receiving amount by Purackal motors in connection with the repairing of the vehicle dated 07-08-2020. Ext.A4 is the accident claim estimate (2 Nos) dated 06-08-2020 and 07-08-2020. Ext.A7 is the copy of notice sent by the complainant to the customer care department of opposite party dated 24.09.2020 and Ext.A8 is the letter issued by opposite party’s customer care department to the complainant dated 05.11.2020 intimating the complainant the settlement amount after reviewing the clam of the complainant by the surveyor as instructed by opposite party.
9. The licensed loss assessor and surveyor was examined as RW1. Ext.B1, B2 series and B3 from the side of opposite party. Ext.B1 is the motor survey report prepared by RW1 dated 15.06.2020 as requested by opposite party. Ext.B2 series is the photographs taken by RW1 in connection with the inspection of the said vehicle dated 15.06.2020. Ext.B3 and Ext.A1 are one and the same.
10. Admittedly the vehicle owned by the PW1 met with an accident and a claim application submitted to the opposite party since the opposite party is the insurer of the said vehicle. According to the complainant he was eligible to the amount shown in Ext.A3 bill ie, Rs.10,570/- which he had been remitted as repairing cost of the damage sustained by the vehicle in the accident. Further he admitted the settlement amount of Rs.9614/- reached by the opposite party as mentioned in Ext.A5 dated 15.08.2020 and on that basis on 07-09-2020 PW1 enquired the matter to the opposite party as the settlement amount was not been transferred to his account. Even though PW1 had already submitted the bank details to the opposite party, they said the same was not available with them. Thereafter on 09-09-2020 the opposite party had sent SMS to the complainant intimating the settlement amount approved is Rs.6464/-. The main contention regarding the variation of claim settlement from the part of opposite party is that the damage of meter assembly was not shown in the photographs taken by the surveyor at the time of inspection of the vehicle and hence the same cannot be allowed.
11. In the above circumstance it is pertinent to note that as per Ext.A5 the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.9614/- on 15.08.2020 even after getting the survey report of RW1 dated 13.08.2020. Moreover on 07.07.2020 the meter assembly replaced in the vehicle when it was repaired at the workshop. In this situation it is to be noted that the RW1 deposed during cross examination by the complainant that “Cu hn¡v A§s\ Dm-bn-«n-Ã, ]cntim[\ kabwInÔ, When put a definite question of, “hml\w A]-I-S-¯nÂs¸-Sp-t¼mÄ meter assembly internal damage Dm-hm-dntÃ(Q). Here, bearing in mind the fact that complainant is conducting the case directly, if he did not tried to further clarification it is to be noted that from the words of RW1 there shall be a possibility of getting damage to the meter assembly when the vehicle was met with an accident.
12. In the above circumstance we found no merit in the version of opposite party regarding the dispute of meter assembly and hence the complainant is entitled to refund the cost of meter assembly paid by him from the opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no amount allowed as compensation.
13. Point No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed in part.
A. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3150/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
B. Complainant is entitled Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17th day of February, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. P.R.Sholy (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Anilkumar P.R (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Policy document regarding the vehicle.
Ext.A2 - Copy of screenshot of SMS
Ext.A3 - Bill
Ext.A4 - Accident claim estimate (2 Nos) dtd.06.08.2020
Ext.A5 - Copy of screenshot of SMS
Ext.A6 - Copy of screenshot of SMS
Ext.A7 - Copy of notice
Ext.A8 - Letter
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sri.Abhilash K.S (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Motor survey report
Ext.B2 series - Photographs
Ext.B3 - Policy document regarding the vehicle
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
