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’s to pay an amount of Rs.1,34,984/-  to the complainant with 12% interest  from 1/9/2016 and 2^nd OP to produce the correct bill and Rs.55,000/- to the complainant the amount he spent for making the vehicle in running condition and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part

The brief of the complaint :

   The complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle KL 59 E 704 Chervorlet Beat CT –CDI car which was insured with 1^st OP as per policy No.760805 31150100005959.  The coverage of the policy from 21/10/2015 to 20/10/2016 and paid  Rs.5633/- as premium.  On 1/5/2016, at Kannikalam the complainant was traveling in the car go to his house he met with an accident and the car got major damages in the accident during the subsistence of the valid policy coverage.  Immediately the complainant informed the accident to 1^st OP through  his agent Shoji K.A.  On the instruction of 1^st OP the complainant took the vehicle to 2^nd OP’s workshop.  The official of 1^st OP visited the spot of the accident and made assessment of the extent of damages and assured the complainant that the claim will be awarded immediately after the repair work is  completed and  the bill is produced.  Believing the words of the  OP, the complainant entrusted the damaged vehicle to 2^nd OP that he will repair the vehicle in time and do necessary things for getting the insurance claim.  But the 2^nd OP made undue delay in repairing  and handing over the  vehicle to the complainant in repaired condition.  Whenever the  complainant approached  2^nd OP he made one or other excuse and caused maximum delay in returning the vehicle  on different  occasions  the 2^nd OP had received  a total amount of Rs.134984/- as repair charges and returned the vehicle on 20/8/2016.  Even after return of the vehicle from 2^nd OP the complainant had to approach some other work shop in order to get the vehicle in running  condition.  The 2^nd OP had damaged the seat and other parts of the vehicle since the vehicle was kept in the  open sun and rain without  any protection. Due to the negligent act of the 2^nd OP the complainant had suffered a lot  and spent  money for making the car in running condition.  The complainant spent a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/-(including Rs.135,000/- as the repair  charges from 2^nd OP also).  Immediately the complainant approached 1^st OP for the claim amount along with the repair bill of Rs.1,34,948/- submitted by 2^nd OP.  But the 1^st OP delayed the payment of claim.  Thereafter on 24/10/2016 the complainant send a lawyer notice to 1^st OP and 1^st OP  replied on 9/11/2016.  The complainant also send a lawyer notice to 2^nd OP on 6/12/2016 and 2^nd OP replied on 19/12/2016.  OPs 1&2 send replies with false contentions and not paid the claim amount also.  The act of  OP’s,  the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint.

       After receiving notice  1^st OP entered before the commission  and filed his written version contending that the complainant is  actually aggrieved by the act of  2^nd OP, since the 2^nd OP had taken  a long time for repairing the vehicle.  They have aggravated the damage to the  vehicle  by exposing the  same  to sun and rain and the  claim could  not be allowed by the  1^st OP because of not issuing  the proper bills by 2^nd OP.  Moreover 1^st OP immediately appointed the licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor Sri.Sreejith.P who immediately inspected the vehicle and made an assessment  of the repair damages of the vehicle.  The net loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.58450/-.  But the 2^nd OP has given  an invoice bill for Rs.1,34,948/- towards the repair cost of the vehicle.  The  re-inspection  was also conducted by the surveyor on 31/8/2016 after the completion  of the repair from workshop and thereafter on completion of the  re-inspection the surveyor has submitted the report on 24/10/2016.  Then on 27/10/2016 the 1^st OP requested the complainant to submit the proper bill.  But the 2^nd OP causing delay in repairing the vehicle.  Again 1^st OP issued letter to complainant on 25/11/2016 requesting  him to submit the proper  repair bill and the mode of payment within  10 days from the receipt of the letter, failing which the 1^st OP will close the file as “no claim” and also had requested the complainant to contact them at anytime if he is having grievance if any in that regard.  But no action from the side of complainant to satisfy the requirement of 1^st OP.  Hence the claim was treated as “no claim” and the file was closed by 1^st OP.2^nd OP received the  notice and not appeared before the commission and not filed version.  Hence 2^nd OP called absent and set exparte. So there is  no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

      On the basis  of the rival contentions by the pleadings the  following  issues  were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is  any deficiency of service   on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost.

     The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts. A1 to A9 were marked . On OP’s side the documents produced before the  commission  by 1^st OP as per the cause production petition  filed by the complainant.  No other evidence from OP’s side.

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 1^st OP. According to the  complainant the documents  Exts.A1 to  A9 were marked on his  part  to substantiate his evidence.  In Ext.A1 is the policy  certificate issued by 1^st OP. Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice send by complainant to 1^st OP dtd. 24/10/2016.  In Ext.A3 is the letter send by 1^st OP to complainant dtd.27/10/2016.  In Ext.A4 is the reply notice dtd.9/11/2016.  In Ext.A5 is the lawyer notice send by complainant to 2^nd OP dtd.6/12/2016.  In Ext.A6 is the reply notice send by 2^nd OP to complainant dtd.19/12/2016.  In Ext.A7 is the repair bills(invoice) issued by 2^nd OP to complainant dtd.20/8/2016 for an amount of Rs.1,34,984.05/-.  In Ext.A8 is the twing charges bill issued by Payyanur Crane Service.  In Ext.A9 is the motor survey report-re inspection  as regarding the insurance claim file.  According to the complainant he is the policy holder of 1^st OP.  As per the policy the complainant obtain  compensation for the damages sustained in the vehicle KL 59E 704 Chevrolet Beat car on 1/5/2016.  The coverage of the policy from  21/10/2015 to 20/10/2016.  So the complainant is entitled to get the valid policy coverage.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to 1^st OP through the agent  Shoji.K.A on the instruction of 1^st OP the complainant entrusted the vehicle to 2^nd OP’s workshop.  But 2^nd OP returned the vehicle on 20/8/2016 ie after 3 ½ months and the repair charges incurred for Rs.1,34,984.05/- .Even after return the vehicle from 2^nd OP the complainant had to approach some other workshop in order to get the vehicle in running condition.  The 2^nd OP had damaged the seat and other parts of the vehicle since the vehicle was kept in the open  sun and rain without any protection.  Moreover 1^st OP appointed a licensed  surveyor and loss assessor Sri.Sreejith.P who immediately inspected the vehicle and made an assessment of repair charges of the  vehicle was Rs.58,450/-.  But 2^nd OP has given the repair bill for Rs.1,34,948/- .  The re-inspection  was also conducted by the surveyor dtd.31/8/2016 and report filed on 24/10/2016.  Thereafter so many times the  1^st OP send letter to complainant for producing  the original repaired bill and mode of payment before the company.  But the complainant is not in a position to produce the original repaired bill before 1^st OP.  In the evidence of PW1, he stated that ‘ Ext.A7 രേഖ OP.NO.2  അവരുടെ letter head    ൽ തയ്യാറാക്കിയ estimate ആണ്.  ഇത്  കൊടുത്താൽ claim കിട്ടുമെന്ന് OP.NO.2 നിങ്ങളെ പറഞ്ഞു വിശ്വസിപ്പിച്ചു? അതെ. OP.NO.1 നിങ്ങൾക്ക്  പല പ്രാവശ്യം letter അയച്ചിരുന്നു. Bill കൾ ഹാജരാക്കാൻ? അതെ. OP.NO.2 പറഞ്ഞു ഞാൻ തന്ന Bill കൾ  കൊടുത്താൽ മതിയെന്ന്.  അതുകൊണ്ടാണ് bill ഹാജരാക്കാൻ പറ്റാത്തത്. നിങ്ങൾ companyയ്ക്ക് കൃത്യമായ bill കൊടുക്കാത്തതുകൊണ്ടാണ് claim company തരാത്തതെന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല. എന്ർറെ ആവശ്യം 2കക്ഷികളും കൂടി 134948/- രൂപ നൽകണം. So it is clear that  the date of accident was on 1/5/2016 and immediately the vehicle entrusted to 2^nd OP.  But the 2^nd OP returned the vehicle on 20/8/2016, ie, after 3 ½ months.  Moreover 2^nd OP not given the proper repair bill and  mode of payment to 1^st OP.  So 1^st OP was close the file as “no claim”.  On OP’s  side produce the survey report and other documents.  But 2^nd OP not appeared before the commission and not proved their defese also.  So we are of the  considered view that the OPs 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to  pay the  actual loss occurred by the complainant.  But the OPs fails to do so. So we hold that there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of both opposite parties .  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and  answered accordingly.

Issue Nos.2&3:

        As discussed above the, the complainant is the policy holder of 1^st OP. On 1/5/2016 the complainant was traveling  in his  car and met with an accident at Kannikkalm and heavy damages was caused to the vehicle.  The 1^st OP’s surveyor assess the actual loss of vehicle is Rs.58450/-.  But the complainant incurred the actual repair charge paid to 2^nd OP is Rs.1,34,948/-.  The 2^nd OP retained the vehicle in his workshop for 3 ½ months and  the complainant incurred additional  amount to making the vehicle in a running condition  also.  So the  complainant is entitled to get the actual loss of the vehicle as per Ext.A7. So  we hold that the OP’s are directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  So the complainant is  entitled to get Rs.58,450/- from  1^st OP with 9% interest per annum  from the date of complaint till realization.  Moreover the complainant is  entitled to get  Rs.65,000/- from 2^nd OP as the compensation for the delay of 3 ½ months to return the vehicle to the complainant  and other additional expenses incurred for making the vehicle in a running condition  and for  mental agony caused to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.    Thus  the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part  directing the  1^st  opposite party to pay Rs.58,450/- with 9% interest per annum  from the date of complaint till realization within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.58,450/- carries 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Moreover  2^nd opposite party is  directed to pay  Rs.65,000/-  as  compensation for the delay of 3 ½ months caused to return the vehicle to the complainant,  the additional expenses incurred for making the vehicle in a running condition  and for  mental agony caused to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order. In default the amount of Rs.65,000/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Failing which the  complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- Insurance certificate

A2-lawyer notice dtd.24/10/2016

A3-letter send  by 1^st OP to complainant dtd.27/10/16

A4-Reply notice dtd.9/11/2016

A5-Lawyer notice dtd.6/12/2016

A6-Reply notice dtd19/12/2016

A7-Repair bills

A8-Twing bill

A9- claim file

PW1-Binoy Orathel- complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR