Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the owner of the car bearing Reg.No.KL3-K 9999, which was insured to 1st opposite party the United India Insurance Company Ltd. On 3rd July 2015 the vehicle met with an accident and the same vehicle was entrusted to GEEYEM MOTORS (P) LTD., Cochin for its repair and it incurred an amount of Rs.90,000/-. Though the complainant filed a claim before the opposite parties they only allowed an amount of Rs.2,900/- to the complainant as insurance amount. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite parties are unreasonable and he is eligible to get the whole repairing charges from the complainant as per the insurance policy. The following are the repairing charges incurred by the complainant.
Date | Invoice No. | Traders Name | Amount |
30.07.2015 | 005438 | Geeyem Motors | 17,327. 00 |
30.07.2015 | 00030331 | ” | 5,840. 00 |
03.08.2015 | 425 | ” | 12,828. 00 |
14.08.2015 | 006166 | ” | 48,835. 00 |
14.09.2015 | 007331 | ” | 4,025. 00 |
| | Total | 88,855. 00 |
Hence, the complainant to realise the above repair charges Rs.88,855/-, cost etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance. The 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum but the 2nd opposite party did not appeared before the Forum hence opposite party 2 is declared as exparte.
4. The version of opposite party 1 is as follows: According to the opposite party, this complaint is not sustainable either in law or on facts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant has availed an insurance policy for his vehicle from the opposite party vide Policy No.1005003114 P 104739104 for the period of 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015. The opposite parties denied the claim of repairing charge of Rs.90,000/- allegedly incurred by the complainant. According to this opposite party, the surveyor and loss assessor conducted the survey of the damages of the vehicle and assessed a damage of Rs.2,919/- towards the claim. It is also admitted that the complainant is entitled to get all damages as per the terms and condition of the insurance policy subject to a depreciation shown in the policy schedule. It is further contended that the details of the invoices submitted by the complainant in Para 6 of the complaint is not genuine and the same is denied. Therefore, this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.
5. This Forum peruse the complaint, version and the records before us and we frame the following issues:
- Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complaint?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant’s power of attorney holder one Thomas G Maruthan was filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 in this case. Ext.A1 to A8 are also marked through PW1. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 30.07.2015 for Rs.17,327/-. Ext.A2 is the invoice dated 30.07.2015 for Rs.5,840/-. Ext.A3 is the invoice dated 03.08.2015 for Rs.12,828/-. Ext.A4 is the invoice dated 14.08.2015 for Rs.48,835/-. Ext.A5 is the invoice dated 14.09.2015 for Rs.4,025/-. Ext.A6 is the insurance policy certificate for the year 2014-15. Ext.A7 is the insurance policy certificate for the year 2015-16. Ext.A8 is the Power of attorney executed by the complainant. PW2 is also examined in favour of the complainant and through him Ext.A9 is also marked. Ext.A9 is the receipt dated 04.07.2015 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Perumbavoor Automobiles, Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta. On the other side, opposite party 1 examined one Muhammed Shajir, who is the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, Pathanamthitta as DW1. He filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and through him Ext.B1 to B6 are also marked. Ext.B1, B1(a) & B1(b) are the copy of policy terms and conditions. Ext.B2 is the motor claim form. Ext.B3 is the Final Motor Survey Report dated 20.08.2015. Ext.B4 series (3 Nos.) are the copy of invoices dated 30.07.2015 & 30.08.2015. Ext.B5 is the settlement voucher dated 15.09.2015. Ext.B6 is the estimate dated 07.07.2015 for Rs.38,760/-. After the closure of the evidence, we heard both sides.
7. Point No.1:- According to opposite party 1, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. When we peruse the whole evidence of this case, it reveals that the complainant who availed an insurance policy from the opposite parties and the policy was valid at the time of the incident. The opposite parties also admitted that the policy was in force at the time of incident. Therefore, we can easily conclude that this case is maintainable before the Forum since the complainant is an insured as a consumer and the opposite parties are insurer of the complainant as a service provider. Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.
8. Point Nos.2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together. The main question to be considered in this case is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainant as alleged. It is admitted that the complainant is an insured and the opposite party is the insurer of the complainant. It is also admitted that the policy was in force at the time of filing claim application and opposite party admitted that the complainant is eligible to get all damages subject to the depreciation contained in the policy schedule. It is also admitted that the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL3-K 9999 met with an accident and the vehicle was entrusted to GYEM Motors Pvt. Ltd., Cochin for its repairs. When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the opposite parties in this case the opposite party United India Insurance Company allowed only an amount of Rs.2,900/- as insurance claim to the complainant. If so, the question to be answered is whether the expenses pointed out by the complainant with regard to the maintenance of work of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL3-K 9999 is true or not. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant produced and marked Ext.A1 to A5. As per Ext.A1 to A5, it is proved that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.88,855/- for the maintenance or repairing of the vehicle in respect of the accident happened on 03.07.2015. When the complainant is examined as PW1 the Ext.A1 to A5 were also marked. When we examine the cross-examination of PW1, it is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party tried to challenge the credibility of Ext.A1 to A5 by a suggestive question. PW1 answered in cross, “Ext.A1 to A5 കളവായും കൃത്രിമമായും ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതല്ല. Authorised service centreþലെ Invoice ആണ്”. On the basis of the answer given by PW1, it is clear that PW1 spent an amount of Rs.88,855/- for the maintenance and repairment of his vehicle. It is true that at the time of filing the version and at the time of examining DW1 in this case the opposite party 1 has a definite case to the effect that as per the terms and condition of the policy the insured is only eligible to get an insurance claim after deducting the depreciation value. In order to substantiate the case of the opposite party, they produced and marked Ext.B1 and B1(a). Ext.B1 is the insurance certificate in favour of the complainant and Ext.B1(a) is the norms to decide the depreciation of the claim amount. Ext.B1(a) is quoted as follows:
Subject to a deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of parts replaced:
- For all rubber/nylon/plastic parts, tyres and tubes, batteries and air bags 50%
- For fibre glass components 30%
- For all parts made of glass Nil
- Rate of depreciation for all other parts including wooden parts will be as per the following schedule
| Age of vehicle | % of Depreciation |
| Not exceeding 6 months | Nil |
| Exceeding 6 months but not exceeding 1 year | 5% |
| Exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 2 years | 10% |
| Exceeding 2 years but not exceeding 3 years | 15% |
| Exceeding 3 years but not exceeding 4 years | 25% |
Exceeding 4 years but not exceeding 5 years | 35% |
Exceeding 5 year but not exceeding 10 years | 40% |
| Exceeding 10 years | 50% |
The portion of Ext.B1(a) is also seen in Ext.A6 copy of the insurance policy certificate produced by the complainant. According to the opposite party 1 the vehicle is having an age of above 10 years and the complainant is also admitting this fact. Therefore, we can find that the vehicle in question is exceeding 10 years of age. As per Ext.B1(a), it can be seen that for replacement of spare parts a depreciation of 50% can be calculated for rubber, nylon, plastic parts, tyre and tubes, batteries and air bags. For fibre glass component 30% depreciation and for all other parts the age of the vehicle is a main criteria for deciding the depreciation. In this case 50% is the depreciation value when consider the age of the vehicle. When we calculate the depreciation value of the claim of the complainant as per Ext.B1(a) we can arrive a calculation as follows:
Exhibit | Invoice amount | Percentage allowed | Amount allowed |
A1 | 17,327.00 | 50% | 8,664.00 |
A2 | 5,840.00 | 25% | 1,460.00 |
A3 | 12,828.00 | | 0.00 |
A4 | 48,835.00 | 50% | 24,418.00 |
A5 | 4,025.00 | 50% | 2,013.00 |
Total Amount | 36,555.00 |
9. In the light of the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case, it can be inferred that the complainant who spent an amount of Rs.88,855/- for the repair work of his vehicle but after depreciation the opposite party allowed an amount of Rs.2,919/- only towards the claim. No doubt, the non consideration of Ext.A1 to A5, the details of the expenditure incurred by the complainant, was not admitted by the opposite party when allowing the insurance claim. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to the complainant as per the terms and condition of Ext.B1/Ext.A6 insurance policy. The calculation of the insurance claim for an amount of Rs.2,919/- by the opposite parties are not justifiable and the act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under the deficiency in service as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986. For this apart from the payment of the insurance claim as per Ext.B1 the opposite parties are also liable to pay a reasonable compensation in favour of the complainant. Though the opposite party 2 is declared exparte in this case, it can be seen that opposite party 2 is the Branch Manager of opposite party 1. Hence we can find that opposite party 1 and 2 are equally and severally liable to the complainant. Hence Point No.2 and 3 are also found accordingly.
10. In the result, we pass the following orders:
- Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.36,555/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Five hundred and fifty five only) to the complainant as insurance claim to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of filing of this case, i.e. 09.11.2015.
- Opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2017.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Thomas G. Maruthethu
PW2 : Anilkumar M.V
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Invoice dated 30.07.2015 for Rs.17,327/-.
A2 : Invoice dated 30.07.2015 for Rs.5,840/-.
A3 : Invoice dated 03.08.2015 for Rs.12,828/-.
A4 : Invoice dated 14.08.2015 for Rs.48,835/-.
A5 : Invoice dated 14.09.2015 for Rs.4,025/-.
A6 : Insurance policy certificate for the year 2014-15.
A7 : Insurance policy certificate for the year 2015-16.
A8 : Power of attorney executed by the complainant.
A9 : Receipt dated 04.07.2015 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Perumbavoor
Automobiles, Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
DW1 : Muhammad Shajir
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
B1, B1(a) & B1(b) : Copy of policy terms and conditions.
B2 : Motor Claim Form.
B3 : Final Motor Survey Report dated 20.08.2015.
B4 series (3 in Nos.) : Copy of invoices dated 30.07.2015 & 30.08.2015.
B5 : Settlement voucher dated 15.09.2015.
B6 : Estimate dated 07.07.2015 for Rs.38,760/-.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Rajan Babu, Kunnil House, Kuriyannoor Post,
Maramon, Kerala.
(2) The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Geetha Trade Centre, M.C. Road, Nagampadom,
Kottayam.
(3) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
