D.O.F:20/07/2019
D.O.O:10/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.139/2019
Dated this, the 10th day of November 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Hareesh. T, aged 38 years,
S/o Kunhikannan Choorikode
R/at 17/293 A, Kolathur Village and Post : Complainant
Kasaragod District – 671541
(Adv: Sabari.L.S)
And
The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, E-8,
EPIP, RIICD Industrial Area, Sitapura, : Opposite Party
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022.
(Adv:A.C. Ashok Kumar)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended).
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of Maruti Suzuki Swift car vehicle bearing No. KL 60 L.1001, which was validly insured with the opposite party with policy No.10003/31/19/250832 for the period from 25.08.2018 to 24.08.2018. As per the policy, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,76,464/-.
The vehicle met with an accident on 26.11.2018 at Perladkam, when a stray dog suddenly crossed the road and the complainant applied sudden brake.
The vehicle was capsized and damaged gravely. When intimated to a toll free number of the opposite party, a surveyor contacted the complainant and told him to send photos of the vehicle to him. Accordingly the complainant took photos of the damaged vehicle and sent to the surveyor. The surveyor approved the said photos and told the complainant to take the vehicle to the service station. Accordingly, the vehicle was taken to the Popular showroom and service center at Chemnad on the same day. The vehicle was totally damaged and the service center estimated the cost of service at Rs.5,97,878/- much above the IDV. Thereafter on 30.01.2018, the surveyor of the opposite party inspected the vehicle at the show room but he sent working approval for Rs.2,45,000/- only. The service center was not prepared to do the repair work for the said amount as the vehicle is totally damaged and the service cost is more than IDV, the opposite party is liable to take possession of the wreck and to pay the IDV to the complainant. The opposite party is not ready for the same in spite of several requests. The vehicle is still in the service station. The complainant has been put to great mental agony and hardships besides the financial loss on account of the service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to take wreck of the vehicle from the service center on payment of the floor rent if any, and to pay Rs.4,76,464/- with interest, along with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and costs.
The opposite party entered appearance through their respective counsel, who filed written Version.
As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable at law . The opposite party admit that the vehicle met with an accident. Immediately on information the opposite party appointed a surveyor, who inspected the vehicle. The surveyor reported that the cost of the repairs will be Rs.2,34,000/-after depreciation. Thereafter the opposite party requested the complainant to make repairs of the vehicle. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was totally damaged and the cost of the service estimated is Rs.5,97,878/- much above the IDV and that the opposite party is liable to take possession of the wreck and to pay the IDV to the complainant etc. are denied .
The opposite party requested the complainant to make repairs of the vehicle to find out the actual loss and to produce dealer bills and cash receipts, but he was not ready for that. Finally the opposite party sent registered notice dated 06.08.2019 to the complainant requesting to make repairs of the vehicle and to produce dealer bills and cash receipts to settle the claim. But so far the complainant not made any repairs and produced any bills to the opposite party. The complainant has no right to consider the vehicle as total loss and to demand the IDV as the loss assessed is less than 75% of the IDV.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 3 are marked. He was cross examined as PW 1. The Ext. A1 is a copy of the Insurance Policy certificate, Ext. A2 is a copy of the RC in the name of complainant , Ext A 3 is the service estimate issued by the Popular Vehicle Service Center. Another witness Mr. Sajith , the Body shop advisor of the Popular car service center also examined as PW2.
From the side of opposite party, no oral evidence is adduced but 2 documents are marked as Ext. B1 and B2 .The Ext B1 is the Certificate of Policy with conditions, Ext . B2 is downloaded copy of the Survey Report (marked with objection).
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief?
For convenience, both the above issues are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that her vehicle having a valid insurance policy, met with an accident on 26.11.2018 and the vehicle was taken to the Popular Showroom and Service Center at Chemnad on the same day as per the direction of the surveyor of the opposite party. The vehicle was totally damaged and the Service Center estimated the cost of service at Rs.5,97,878/- much above the IDV. Thereafter on 30.01.2018, the surveyor inspected the vehicle at the show room , but he sent working approval for Rs.2,45,000/- only. The Service Center was not prepared to do the repair work for the said amount. As the vehicle is totally damaged and the service cost is more than IDV, the opposite party is liable to take possession of the wreck and to pay the IDV to the complainant.
The opposite party admit that the vehicle met with an accident. Immediately on information the opposite party appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle .The surveyor reported that the cost of the repairs will be Rs.2,34,000/-after depreciation. Thereafter the opposite party requested the complainant to make repairs of the vehicle. The contention of the complainant that the vehicle was totally damaged and the cost of the service estimated is Rs.5,97,878/- , much above the IDV and that the opposite party is liable to take possession of the wreck and to pay the IDV to the complainant etc. are denied . The opposite party requested the complainant to make repairs of the vehicle to find out the actual loss and to produce dealer bills and cash receipts, but he was not ready for that. Finally the opposite party sent registered notice dated 06.08.2019 to the complainant requesting to make repairs of the vehicle and to produce dealer bills and cash receipts to settle the claim. But so far the complainant not made any repairs and produced any bills to the opposite party. The complainant has no right to consider the vehicle as total loss and to demand the IDV as the loss assessed is less than 75% of the IDV.
Here the complainant’s main point is that the vehicle was totally damaged and the service cost estimated is more than the IDV and the opposite party is liable to take possession of the wreck of the vehicle and to pay the IDV to the complainant on total loss basis. The opposite party’s contention is that vehicle was repairable and surveyor assessed the cost of the repairs to amount of Rs. 2,34,000/-only , after depreciation. The opposite party produced a downloaded copy of the survey report and marked as Ext.B2 (subject to objection of the complainant). The surveyor did not step into the box and therefore it cannot be held that the survey report is proved. The assessment of loss by an approved surveyor is a prerequisite for the settlement of insurance claims. A surveyor report is statutorily recognized and is a basic document in determining claims. However, the surveyor report is not the final word and is not conclusive. The surveyor report is not binding on the insurer or the insured. Any contrary evidence, can be produced to rebut the surveyor report .The complainant examined PW2 , the Body shop advisor of the Popular car service center, the authorized service center of Maruti Cars,. The PW2 would depose he had prepared the Ext A 3 , the service estimate of the damaged vehicle and the repair charge estimated by him was Rs. 5,97,818/-. .The PW2 also deposed that the vehicle was not satisfactorily repairable for future use. This amount of estimate Rs. 5,97,818/- is more than the IDV. It is settled position that when the estimated cost of repairing a damaged car is more than 75 % of its Insured Declared Value (IDV), then it is known as a total loss of the car. Therefore this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the compensation for the constructive total loss.
The date of registration/delivery of the vehicle is 01.08.2016. The date of accident is 25.08.2018. As per the Ext.B1 , the Certificate of Policy with conditions, the Schedule of Depreciation for fixing of the IDV of the vehicle exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years is 30%. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,76,464/-. After deducting 30% depreciation, the amount is Rs.3,33,525/- and the complainant is entitled for that amount. The complainant submits that he is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardships. But there is no evidence for such a huge loss. This commission is of the view that Rs.20,000/-will be a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.3,33,525/- to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 20.07.2019 , the date of complaint, till the date of payment. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and hardships and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost. The opposite party is entitled for the wreck of the vehicle and they are at liberty to deal with it.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1-Registration certificate
A2- Policy certificate
A3- Service estimate
B1- Certificate of policy
B2- Survey report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Hareesh.T
Pw2- Sajith.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
