By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

            The complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Complaint in short is as follows:-

1.         The complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. KL- 71- C-2801 Tata super Ace mint model vehicle of the year 2016 and which is insured with opposite party for the period 10/05/2018 to 03/05/2019. The policy No. is 76020431180100001981. The complainant used vehicle for commercial purpose.

2.         On 18/07/2018 while the vehicle was running towards Wandoor, it was caught fire and the driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle, got down and opened the bonnet of the vehicle. Since he could not control the fire informed fire force and they put out the fire. The damaged vehicle was taken to Apco auto mobiles private limited, Manjeri, the authorized service people of the Tata vehicles on the same day.  The repair was completed on 31/10/2018 and issued an invoice for the sum of Rs.3,12,573/- which includes the cost of components labor charges and GST.  The complainant issued one photo copy of the said invoice to the opposite party and one copy to the agent through whom the vehicle was insured with the opposite party.  The complainant waited for several days expecting that the opposite party will settle the claim of the repairer.  The M/s Apco Auto mobiles Pvt Ltd-the service Centre where not ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant without receiving the money which is due under the said invoice. Complainant made several requests to the opposite party but they even do not give a reply to the complainant.

3.         Subsequently on 18/03/2019 complainant issued letter to the opposite party by registered post demanding to pay the repair cost within one week from the date of receipt of the letter. On 28/03/2019 the opposite party issued a reply stating strange things which were not intimated to the complainant previously. The opposite party stated that they are prepared to pay only Rs.1,81,484/-. The opposite party also stated in the reply that the doubts of the complainant were clarified directly. The opposite party after receipt of invoice did not care to give an answer or reply till 4 months. After that on 04/01/2019 complainant approached the opposite party office and, on that day, the opposite party showed a tablet to the complainant stating a very low amount. The complainant who was dejected left the office room in order to fully comprehend the situation. The complainant proceeded to the adjoining room and at that time the said tablet was within his hand and he was holding a mobile phone on the other hand thinking it was his own. The opposite party officer suddenly moved himself in front of the complainant and blocked the complainant. The officer went to accuse that the complainant was attempting to take away the said articles from the opposite party’s office and threatened that a police complaint would be filed. The complainant told that taking way the articles was not in his mind and he never intended to leave the office also. Any way the officer was not inclined to believe the complainant and made unnecessary display of excitement and harassed the complainant. The said issue was settled by the complainant signing the letter expressing regret.   The allegation in the letter of the opposite part is not correct but the opposite party was absolutely prejudiced in deciding the claim of the complainant. The complainant issued a detailed reply to the opposite party on 11/04/2019.

4.         The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant as mandated by the policy of insurance. The vehicle of the complainant damaged by the fire is comparatively a new vehicle. The manner in which the opposite party reduced the invoice amount is not acceptable to the complainant. The surveyor report also not acceptable to the complainant. There was a considerable delay in delivering the vehicle since the opposite party did not pay the invoice amount to the repairer. So, the complainant could not use the vehicle for about 150 days. Complainant had to hire vehicle from third parties and had to spend Rs.500/- per day. The complainant spends a total amount of Rs.75,000/- during the period.

5.         The opposite party remitted only Rs.1,81,484/- to the repairer against the invoice amount of Rs.3,12,573/-. The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 04/09/2018 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 22/04/2019 to the repairer towards the settlement of the invoice amount. The opposite party should have paid the entire invoice amount of Rs.3,12,523/- The reason shown by the opposite party for not paying the entire amount as per the invoice of the repairer are not acceptable for the complainant. The refusal of the opposite party to honor the entire invoice amount is breach of the condition of the policy and so the prayer of the complainant is that to direct opposite party to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/ being the amount incurred by the complainant for repairing the vehicle No. KL- 71- C-2801. The complainant also prays Rs.75,000/- towards the additional expenses incurred by the complainant along with Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and also cost of Rs.25,000/-

6.         On admission of the compliant notice was issued to the opposite party and they received notice, entered appearance, filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

7.         The opposite party denied that the complainant waited for several days for the opposite party to settle the claim of repairer, complainant made several requests to the opposite party to make payment to the repairer, the opposite party did not give reply to the complainant etc. are false and so the opposite party denied. The allegation that opposite party replied on 28/03/2019 stating many things which were not intimated to the complainant previously is not correct.

8.         The opposite party made clear all facts and circumstances to the complainant and clarified all the doubts of the complainant on 28/12/2018 and paid Rs. 1,81,484/- to the repairer. The opposite party processed the claim as per terms and policy norms under law.  The opposite party denied that they are being a government of India under taking should have shown courtesy to inform the complainant about the opposite party decision of claim is baseless. The opposite party also denied that on 04/01/2019 they misbehaved against the complainant and complainant was blocked by the opposite party officer are false. The opposite party submitted that the complainant took away the tablets belongs to the opposite party office and later the complainant gave back the tablet and apologized. The opposite party denied that they were prejudiced in deciding the claim of complainant.  The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party was deficient in giving proper service to the complaint as mandatory to the policy of insurance. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in processing the claim.  The opposite party denied that the complainant could not use vehicle for 150 days and for which opposite party is liable. It is also not correct that the complainant had to avail vehicle from third party and had to spend Rs.500/- per day and thus spend Rs.75,000/- is not correct. The opposite party denied that the complainant was put to mental tension and for that estimates damages Rs.50,000/-, eligible 25,000/- towards the cost and the opposite party should have paid Rs.3,12,573/- is not correct. The opposite party admit that the policy was issued to the complainant as stated in the complaint. The issuance of policy was subject to policy conditions and clauses. In this complaint vehicle has not met with accident but damages occurred due to fire occurrence arouse from electrical wiring of the vehicles.  So the expenses for wiring harness is excluded as the same was the cause of fire. The situation was well explained to the petitioner in person and deducted expenses of electrical wiring and the balance amount in respect of the damages to the vehicle was duly paid without any delay and the payment was made on 01/12/2018 to the workshop. Since there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed the complainant.

9.         The complainant and opposite party filed affidavits and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ex.t A1 is copy of RC of vehicle No.KL-71-C- 2801 Tata super ACE MINT BSIV. Ext. A2 is copy of report of fire station, Thiruvally, Ext. A3 is copy of estimate for the vehicle issued by Apco Automobile Manjeri dated 20/08/2018. Ext. A4 is copy of tax invoice issued by Apco Auto mobiles Pvt. Limited Manjeri dated 31/10/2018. Ext. A5 is copy of receipt dated 04/09/2018. Ext. A6 is Copy of receipt dated 22/04/2019. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is copy of payment voucher dated 17/02/2018. Ext. B2 is letter issued by complainant to opposite party dated 18/03/2019. Ext. B3 is certificate of insurance bearing number 76020431180100001981. Ext. B4 is survey report dated 22/11/2018. The insurance surveyor examined as DW1.

         Perused affidavit and documents and heard both sides.

        The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and cost

10.       Point No.1 &2

            There is no dispute regarding the ownership and insurance for the vehicle during the relevant period. The grievance of the complainant is that as per Ext. A4 the total assessment for the damage was Rs.3,12,573/- but the opposite party did not allow the entire amount and there was inordinate delay in considering the claim of the complainant and thereby huge loss sustained to the complainant mentally as well as financially.

11.       The labor cost assessed by the Ext. A4 is 54,143/- but the surveyor assessed in his report as Rs.23,600/-. There is no logic for the variation of this much difference in labor cost.  It is also to be noted that the opposite party has reduced towing charge of Rs.1,500/- from the final assessment. It can be seen that the accident took place at Wandoor and the vehicle was inspected by the surveyor at Manjeri Apco Automobile Pvt. Limited which is away from the place of accident. It can be presumed that a totally damaged vehicle will not reach at Manjeri work shop without towing charge. So, there is no justification for denial of the towing charge alleging want of document.

12.       The opposite party filed affidavit and documents Ext. B1 to B4 to show how the opposite party arrived the assessment. As per the policy according to the opposite party, depreciation is applicable and accordingly the surveyor assessed loss as per the policy. It is submitted that some of the parts applicable 50% depreciation and some other parts are subject to 15% depreciation. The specific contention of the opposite party is that the policy is subject to depreciation and the document Ext. A4 issued is without considering depreciation. Hence it can be seen that the report of the surveyor and the calculation accordingly cannot be disputed. Insurance surveyor was examined before the commission as DW 1 and nothing was brought out against his report.

13.       In this complaint the accident was occurred on 18/07/2018 and the surveyor initially inspected the vehicle on 27/07/2018 i.e on the same day itself when he was appointed to assess the loss sustained to the vehicle in the accident. It is also to be noted that the repair work was completed on 31/10/2018.   Subsequently the surveyor issued the final report only on 22/11/2018 which shows that after completion of repair work the surveyor has taken more than 3 weeks’ time to file final report of assessment. It is also to be noted that the opposite party   allowed the amount assessed by the surveyor on 17/12/2018. In short the opposite party has availed considerable days for sanctioning the assessed damages. It can be seen that there is no document to show the opposite party was prepared to allow the assessed amount of the surveyor or the amount claimed by the complainant. Hence the complainant was caused to issued notice to the opposite party also.   The said notice also shows that the complainant had never informed by the opposite party regarding the amount allowed by them towards the damage. So, it can be seen that there was inordinate delay in settling the admitted amount by the opposite party.

14.       The complainant has got a case that he was using the vehicle for commercial purpose. The unfortunate event took place while he was doing his work. It is also to be noted that the fire broken out while the vehicle was running and a great unfortunate accident was avoided also.  But there is no document to show the real cause for fire. The insurance surveyor has noted that it may be due to electric short circuit. In the absence of proper evidence the real cause of accident cannot be concluded. The right of complainant cannot be discarded on an uncertain cause of accident. The vehicle involved in this complaint is of 2016 model, comparatively a new one. Due to the accident the complainant submit that he was compelled to avail service of other vehicles spending Rs.500/- per day. Hence delay caused releasing the vehicle from authorized repairer definitely caused financial as well as other hardships to the complainant. The delay was caused due to the none issuance of final survey report by the authorized insurance surveyor and the procedural delay availed by the opposite party resulted s delay in delivery of the vehicle from the service Centre. So, the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of delay, which amounts deficiency in service.

15.       Hence, the complainant is entitled for the difference in labor cost of Rs.30,543/- as well as towing charge of Rs.1,500/-. Complainant also entitled for compensation on account of deficiency in service by not providing the accepted surveyor assessed amount in time. The complainant claims Rs.500/- per day towards additional expenses he incurred during this period. We consider Rs.25,000/- will be reasonable amount towards the additional expenses that he might have suffered during this period. We also allow Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant due to deficicneny in service on the part of opposite party.

16.       In the light of above fact and circumstances, partly allowed the complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,543/- (Rupees thirty thousand five hundred and forty-three only) to the complainant towards labor cost.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/ (Rupees thousand five hundred  only) to the complainant towards the towing charge.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) towards the additional expenses he incurred due to delay in providing the assessed amount by the insurance surveyor.
4. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships to the complainant.
5. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party is directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay 12% interest per Anum on the above said entire amount of Rs.87,043. /- from the date of order till realization.

Dated this 19^th day of April, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A6

Ext.A1: Copy of RC of vehicle No.KL-71-C- 2801 Tata super ACE MINT BSIV.

Ext.A2: Copy of report of fire station, Thiruvally,

Ext A3: Copy of estimate for the vehicle issued by Apco Automobile Manjeri dated

20/08/2018.

Ext A4: Copy of tax invoice issued by Apco Auto mobiles Pvt. Limited Manjeri.

31/10/2018.

Ext A5: Copy of receipt dated 04/09/2018.

Ext.A6: Copy of receipt dated 22/04/2019.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1

DW1: Insurance surveyor

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B5

Ext.B1: Copy of payment voucher dated 17/02/2018.

Ext.B2: Copy of letter issued by complainant by opposite party dated 18/03/2019

Ext.B3: Certificate of insurance, policy number 76020431180100001981.

Ext.B4: Survey report dated 22/11/2018

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member