IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 23rd day of February 2010 CC.18/2008 T.P.Mahamood, “Man Hal”, Kasanakotta Road, Kannur 2. (Rep. by Adv.P.K.Anwar) Complainant 1.Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd., Maruthi Service, P.O.Chovva, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty) 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite parties Bank Road, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.V.K.Rajeev) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.34, 620/- In brief case of the complainant is that the complainant insured his vehicle Maruthi Alto LX-1 car bearing Reg.No.KL.13/M-6621. On 21.2.2007 at about 11.30 P.M the car was parked near Kavitha theatre, Kannur. After a short while it was found that some other vehicle hit against the complainant’s car and damaged on the front side of the car. Its glass was broken, A.C Panel, Lamp etc. were found damaged. The vehicle which hit against the complainant’s car could not be detected. Immediately a complaint was lodged before the Kannur town police station. On the next day the car was entrusted to 1st opposite party for repair. Repair work was completed on 28.2.07. But 1st opposite party did not handover the vehicle to the complainant since the clearance had not been given by 2nd opposite party till 12.4.2077. They detained the vehicle unlawfully for a report from the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle delivered by receiving an amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant. The bill f or repair was Rs.30, 764/- but 2nd opposite party had paid only Rs.21, 764/- and the balance Rs.9000/- was collected from the complainant, which is unlawful and unjustifiable. The opposite parties are liable to refund the amount. The vehicle was retained for 1 month and 12 days after completion of the repair work and complainant sustained a loss of Rs.15, 000/- to take a rented car and Rs.620/- as amount to policy. Complainant suffered unexplainable mental pain. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party but they insulted him. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.24620/- to the complainant. Since there is no response on the side of opposite party there is no other go except approaching this Forum. In pursuance of notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version separately. The contentions of 1st opposite party in brief are as follows; it is true that the vehicle was insured with 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party. It was entrusted to him for repair on 21.2.2007. The reason stated for damage is due to a hit by an unknown car. The vehicle was repaired on 28.2.07 and a bill was issued to complainant for Rs.30, 764/-. 2nd opposite party insurance company has adjusted an amount of Rs.21, 764/- only. So the balance amount has to be paid by complainant himself. Complainant requested to keep the vehicle before two days and he will take delivery by paying balance amount Rs.9000/-. On 3.4.2007 the opposite party sent a letter to complainant requesting him to take delivery of the vehicle. He did not respond. At last on 12.4.07 complainant took delivery after paying Rs.9000/-. There is no deficiency on the part of 1st opposite party. The complainant if entitled to get any relief it is the 2nd opposite party Insurance Company who is liable to compensate the complainant. At any cost this opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Hence to dismiss the complaint. 2nd opposite party contended that this complaint is not maintainable since there was no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party in processing the claim and allowing the claim a sum of Rs.19,245/-. On getting intimation from the complainant 2nd opposite party had deputed Sri.Ramachandra.P.K to investigate in to the matter and to submit a report. Investigating report was submitted on 14.3.07. As per the report the narration of the complaint found to be a fabricated story. 2nd opposite party had also appointed Sri.M.Raviundran, Surveyor to assess the damages. As per his report 21.3.07 he had assessed that the net liability of the insurance company would be Rs.25, 660/-. After considering normal depreciation minimum salvage etc as per policy condition and nature of claim 2nd opposite party processed the claim on a non-standard basis and had allowed 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor and had issued cheque for Rs.19245/-. The loss of coverage of insurance policy Rs.620/- and expense of Rs.15, 000/- to avail rented car and allegation of ridiculing nature of opposite party etc. are denied. 2nd opposite party has already allowed the repair bill as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence to dismiss the claim. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1.whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties,
2.Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consist of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of DW1,DW2 and DW3 and documentary evidence Exts.B1 to B9 on the side of opposite parties. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly the complainant insured his Maruthi Alto LX.1 car with 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party. The incident that caused damage to complainant’s vehicle took place on 21.2.2007 when parked near Kavitha Theatre, Kannur. The vehicle was admittedly entrusted to 1st opposite party and repaired on 28.2.07 and a bill for Rs.30, 764/- issued to complainant. 2nd opposite party had paid only Rs.21, 764/- and the balance amount rs.9000/- was collected from the complainant. The main case of the complainant is that the collection of Rs.9000/- from the complainant is illegal and unjustifiable opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to refund the amount. Moreover, opposite parties unlawfully withheld the vehicle for about 1 month and 12 days after completion of the repair. Complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with his pleading. The important point that has to be answered from the very out is whether the complainant is entitled for full amount of the repair bill or not? Except the pleadings there is nothing to prove that the collection Rs.9000/- is illegal and unjustifiable. Mere pleading is not enough to come in to conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the full amount of the bill. Complainant produced documents Exts.A1 to A6. But none of the documents is capable of proving this important allegation of illegality of collection of Rs.9000/-.Complainant is not able to prove why and how it is illegal. The 2nd opposite party contended that the investigation report Ext.B7 dt.14.3.07 reveals that the narration of the incident by the complainant which caused the damage to the car is found to be fabricated stores. 2nd opposite party also appointed Sri.M.Ravindran, licenced surveyor and loss assessor to assess the damages caused to the vehicle. He recommended for settlement of the claim for fs.25, 660/- subjected to the observation made by the Insurance investigator in his investigation report (Ext.B7). The next point to be answered is whether the opposite party can be justified in denying the amount Rs.25, 660/- recommended by Sri.M.Ravindran, licensed surveyor and loss assessor. Ext.A8 is the report submitted by Mr.Ravindran. Ext.A8 report recommended Rs.25, 660/-. But 2nd opposite party allowed only 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor. The main reason to deduct 25% of the amount is that 2nd opposite party processed the claim on a non-standard basis considering the nature of the claim. It is pertinent to note thatExt.B8 recommended the amount subjected to the observations made by the Insurance Investigator. The notes make it clear that the cause of accident tallies with the nature of damages noticed on the vehicle. Opposite party stressed the point that the narration of the incident by the complainant which caused the damage to the car is found to be fabricated stores. But Ext.A8 report unequivocally makes sure that the personal enquiry of Sri.M.Ravindran the licensed surveyor and loss assessor with the insured he had found that the date, time place, cause and circumstances of the accident and also the details of the driver at the time of accident are genuine. It is also noted that except Radiator assembly all other salvages have been destroyed by the workshop in his presence and necessary photographs was enclosed. Thus there is no justification in denying the recommended amount by Ext.A8. In the light of above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that 2nd opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25660/-. But opposite party has paid only Rs.19245/-. Hence complainant is entitled to get the balance amount Rs.6415/-. Complainant also entitled to get a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of these proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 is answered in favour of complainant and orders passed accordingly. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.6415/-(Rupees Six thousand four hundred and fifteen only) as claim amount and a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation together with Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant 1.Copy of registration certificate A2.Copy of the letter issued by OP A3.Copy of insurance policy certificate A4.Copy of certificate issued from Traffic Police station, Kannur A5.Bill dt.28.2.07 A6.Cash receipt issued by OP1. Exhibits for the opposite parties B1&B2..Motor claim intimation form and claim form( copy) B3.Letter submitted by complainant B4.Copy of the letter dt3.4.07 sent to complainant B5.Certificate of posting receipt B6.Proposal form submitted by complainant B7.Letter sent by Investigator to OP B8. Survey report dt.21.3.07 B9.Claim settlement report & receipt Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.A.Sandeepan DW2.Sankarankutty DW3.M.Ravindran /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
