DATE OF FILING :08/03/18 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 22nd  day of February 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 46/2018

Between

Complainant       :  Shajan V.S., S/o Sebastian,

                                                                            Valiyaparambil House,

                                                                            Vazhathope Kara, Thadiyampadu.

(By Adv:  Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party                                          : 1 . MGF Motors Ltd.,

                                                                            Building No.KP VI/125 A1 to A7 

                                                                            Kanchiyar P.O., Kattappana,

                                                                            Represented by its Branch.

                                                                  (By Adv:  P.Fazil, Adv.V.S.Sreejith,

                                                                   Adv. Jayasree Manoj,  Adv.Jithin Paul Varghese)

                                                                      2 . United India Insurance Company Ltd., 

                                                                            Motor OD Claims Service Hub, 

                                                                          4th Floor, Jos Trust Building Opposite YMCA,

                                                                          Chittoor Road, Ernakulam,

                                                                          Represented by  its Branch Manager.

                                                                          (By Adv: T.J.Lakshmanan)

                                                                    3 . V.N.Sivan Pillai IRDA Licensed Surveyor

                                                                         C/o United India Insurance Company Ltd., 

                                                                         Motor OD Claims Service Hub, 4th Floor, 

                                                                         Jos Trust Building Opposite YMCA,

                                                                         Chittoor Road, Ernakulam.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant  is the registered owner of a Hyundai Creta Car bearing Reg.No.KL/06/H/2760.  The car is insured with the second opposite party and the insurance policy is Zero depreciation bumper to bumper policy.   While so, on  17/06/17,  the   car  met  with  an  accident  and  entrusted   it  to  the  first

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

opposite party for repair work after intimating the matter of accident to the second opposite party.  The first opposite party estimated the vehicle damages and labour charges for repair as to Rs.5,96,340/-, and the third opposite party surveyed the vehicle.  After repair the first opposite party issued a total bill of Rs.5,04,497/- and the complainant paid the entire amount to the first opposite party and claimed the amount from  the second opposite party.  But instead of paying the bill amounts, the second opposite party paid only Rs.4,63,965/- by deducting Rs.45,532/- from the actual bill amount.  Against this the complainant lodged a written complaint before the second opposite party and the second opposite party replied that the surveyor deducted an amount of Rs.45,532/- in different heads.

 

The complainant further averred that the deduction of such an amount is gross deficiency  in service and the opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to pay the amount to the complainant.  This illegal deduction of the third opposite party, the surveyor, caused much pain and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties to return the illegally deducted amount along with compensation and cost through this complaint.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version denying the averments in the complaint.  In their reply version the first opposite party contented that the estimate approved by the opposite parties 2 and 3 and this  opposite parties has no role in the preparation of the estimate or its valuation.  The salvage value was calculated by the third opposite party based on the parts classifications and general standard followed by them.  Further, while taking delivery of the vehicle, the service manager of this opposite party had asked the complainant for taking back the salvage part, but the opposite party was reluctant for that.  This opposite party further contented that there has been no carelessness on their part and contrary allegation are false and hence denied.

 

The second opposite party in their version contented that the claim of the complainant has been already settled by this opposite party on 22/09/17 and the complainant is also admitted this.  The complainant now raised a quantum dispute and in the relief he prayed for balance amount.  The Hon'ble National  Commission  in  a  decision  reported in 2003 CCJ page 1389 held that

                                                                                                                            (Cont....3)

-3-

the  complaint regarding the quantum dispute after settling the claim is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  This opposite party had granted to its terms and conditions and it is settled law  that the parties to the Insurance Contract are bound by the terms of the said policy. Opposite party further contented that they settled the claim as per the surveying report of the third opposite party, and the complainant without any protest accepted the amount as full and final settlement.  This opposite party acted only in accordance with law and considered the claim after perusing all the relevant facts, and said act cannot be considered as a deficiency in service on their part.  Further contented that the independent licensed surveyor done a detailed survey before and after the repair of the insured vehicle and assessed the losss.  The complainant has not adduced any cogent and concrete evidence to rebut the assessment of the loan arrived in the survey report.  The opposite party acted only in good faith and considered the claim for settlement after considering all the relevant facts and rendered the service after taking all precautions.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents.  The  documents such as claim forms, copy of complaint lodged by the complainant to the second opposite party, reply from the second opposite party, copy of pass book, copy of bills were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P5 respectively.  From the defence side no oral or documentary evidence is produced.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both the parties and had gone through the records.  It is an admitted fact that the alleged, vehicle was insured with the second opposite party through vide insurance policy No.1001043116 P 116324700 for a period from 23/03/17 to 22/03/18.  As per the averment of the complaint  this policy is a zero depreciation bumper to bumper policy.  The nature of the policy is not denied by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties admitted the accident of the vehicle during the validity of the  policy  and  after  conducting  proper  survey before and after the repair of

                                                                                                                          (Cont....4)

-4-

the vehicle, they sanctioned the claim of Rs.4,63,965/-.  The version of the complainant is that the total damage was assessed by the opposite parties as 5,96,340/- and after the completion of repair work, the first opposite party issued a bill of Rs.5,04,497/- (Ext.P5) and complainant paid the entire amount.  But by deducting an amount of Rs.45,532/- opposite parties sanctioned the claim and transferred the amount to the bank account of the complainant.  From the records it is seen that immediately the remittance of the amounts the complainant lodged a written complaint before the opposite parties challenging this amount and demanded full amount as per Ext.P5 bills.  In reply to this opposite parties send the details of the deductions from the bill, as reported by the  surveyor.  Here in this case, even though opposite parties send a reply stating the details of survey report for deducting  the claim, no survey report is produced before this Forum to substantiate their contention.  On a perusal of the evidence on record the Forum convinced that, the amount sanctioned in this claim is not accepted by the complainant as full and  final settlement and the complainant objected the act of the second opposite party  through Ext.P2 letter.  The reply  given to this letter is not sufficient to prove that the second opposite party acted bonafidely.  Without having sufficient material to prove their version,  opposite parties has no right to deduct such an amount from the bills of repair, in a zero depreciation bumper to bumper policy.  This act of the opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency in service   and counter version cannot  be sustainable.  

 

On the basis of the above discussion complaint allowed.  Forum directs the second opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.45,532/- along with Rs.2000/- as the litigation cost  to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.45,532/- shall bear 12% interest from the date of default till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd  day of February, 2019.

 

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                        SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)

 

 

                                                                                                                           (Cont....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1      - Claim forms

Ext.P2     -  Copy of complaint lodged by the complainant to the

                  second opposite party

Ext.P3    - Reply from the second opposite party

Ext.P4   -  Copy of pass book

Ext.P5   - Copy of bills 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

                    Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                         SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT