By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member<br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had purchased a Car (Santro) bearing Reg. No.KL.12/3487 from the show room of 2nd opposite party. The booking was canvased by the sales consultant of the 2nd opposite party namely one Mr. Manoj V.A.. The 2nd opposite party offered additional fittings of music system and fog lamp. Music system was given at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The fog lamp was fitted during the first service. The fog lamp was not functioning at the time of fitting. Even after the repair on the 2nd service, it was not functioning. In an accident, both the fog lamps were damaged. The right side fog lamp was broken and the left side lamp was loosened. The complainant had placed a claim for Rs.8,784/- against the policy <br /> Contd.....2)<br /> 2<br /> No.101601/31/04/01049 before the 1st opposite party which was allowed partly for Rs.4,450/- only. The 1st opposite party also demanded a receipt in full satisfaction of the claim. The Complainant had sent a lawyer notice on 24.6.2005, but not properly replied by the opposite party, Again on 20.5.2005, the complainant caused another lawyer notice requesting the 1st opposite party to issue copies of all relevant documents including surveyor's report. But the 1st opposite party withheld surveyor's report. Due to the irresponsible act of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered loss and damages. So the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,784 to the complainant with 18% interest and a compensation of Rs.2,500/- and other cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Both the opposite parties appeared and filed version. The 1st opposite party stated that they had sent claim disbursement voucher for the amount legally entitled by the complainant as per policy conditions. The opposite party is not liable to pay for damages caused to additional fittings which are not covered by policy. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party states that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation against the 2nd opposite party. The fog lamp was fitted on 11.7.2002. There was no complaint about the repair dated 20.5.2005. The partial denial of insurance claim is unknown to the 2nd opposite party and they have nothing to do with it. The date of accident and the date of repair are not disclosed by the complainant. The music system and lamp were offered as 'free' accessories and the complainant is not a consumer in respect of those items for which consideration is not paid. The 2nd opposite party is unnecessarily dragged to the Forum and compensatory cost is to be ordered to the 2nd opposite party from the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext. A1 to A8. The opposite parties adduced no oral evidence, Ext. B1 series are marked on the side of the opposite parties. The surveyor's report of the insurance company is marked as Ext.C1.<br /> 3<br /> 4. The points in consideration are as follows:<br /> 1). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.?<br /> 2). Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The complainant admits that the fog lamp was supplied on 11.7.2002 and repaired on 29.1.2003. The complaint was filed on 13.10.06. So the complaint regarding the fog light against the 2nd opposite party is time barred. The complainant raised no other allegation against the 2nd opposite party. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant stated that he has placed a claim for Rs.8,784/- against the policy No.101601/31/04/01049. The claim form is not produced before the forum. An amount of Rs. 4450/- is sanctioned by the 1st opposite party and the voucher is produced and marked as Ext. A5. Ext.A8 series reveals that the 2nd opposite party has given an estimate of Rs.30,645/- for labour charges and Rs.2,845.50/- for spare parts. Ext. A8 also shows a credit invoice for Rs.8,784/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant . Ext. C1 is the surveyor's report and as per Ext. C1, the surveyor estimates the labour charge as Rs.4,959/- and cost of parts not allowed. As per C1 the fog lamp is found intact. On perusing the documents, it is found that the 1st opposite party has decided the claim based exclusively on C1. The 2nd opposite party's estimate and credit invoice are taken in to consideration by the 1st opposite party only for denying the claim for fog lamps and spare parts. The other part, labour charge for repair suggested by the 2nd opposite party is not at all considered. So it is found that the surveyor's report and 1st opposite party's claim allocation is arbitrary. Hence the 1st point is found against the 1st opposite party,<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2: The complainant does not insist on the estimate and the bills issued by the 2nd opposite party for the repair. His claim is only for Rs.8,784/- as per credit value.<br /> Contd......4)<br /> 4<br /> The complaint is mainly regarding the claim for damage of fog lamp. As per proposal form Ext. B1 series, he has not applied for insurance of additional fittings, the policy Ext. B1 series also does not show insurance for additional fittings. So, the complainant is not entitled for any claim for damage of fog lamps. The reply notice of OP1, Ext. A7 shows that the claim is partly disallowed because the fog lamps were found intact. The 1st opposite party has not informed the complainant about the facts based on which they have rejected the claim for Rs.8,784/- and allowed Rs.4,450/- only. The reason stated to the complainant in the reply notice is not correct. It is only in the version 1st opposite party has stated that additional fittings have no insurance coverage. There is no correct evaluation or assessment of the bills and certificates submitted by 2nd opposite party. So the complainant is entitled for claim amount deducting the price for additional fittings that is Rs.1455+ 1455 as shown in the credit invoice Ext8 series.<br /> <br /> Hence the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,874/- on the insurance claim and also Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the case to the complainant. The 1st opposite party has to comply with the order within 30 days of this order. No order against the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open forum on the day of 21st June 2008.<br />