Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

111/2014

S.B.Kamala Kannan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Cholamandalam Ms.Gen.Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Vanathisenthil Kumar

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.06.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.11.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 18^th   DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.111/2014

 

 

S.B.Kamala Kannan,

No.1/1190, Raja Yogi Street,

Gandhi Nagar, Redhills,

Chennai – 600 052.

 

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Dare House, 2^nd Floor,

No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. Carnation Auto India (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

B-20, 1^st Main Road,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058.

 

3. The Managing Director,

Carnation Auto India (P) Ltd.,

No.3/16, Shanthi Nikethan, II Floor,

New Delhi – 110 021.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 13.06.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Vanathi Senthilkumar

Counsel for 1^st  Opposite party                 :M.B.Gopalan

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties     : M/s.K.R.Neelambar

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is running a travel agency and renting Software Companies, BPOs and MNCs providing service around the city. For the said purpose the Complainant purchased a Indica car bearing registration no.TN-18-H-7251 through hire purchase and the said car was insured with the 1st Opposite Party.  Unfortunately the car met with an accident and the entire front portion of the car was damaged. The Complainant intimated the accident to the 1^st Opposite Party with the claim form. On the recommendation of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant left the car with the 2^nd Opposite Party for repair. The 3^rd Opposite Party is the 3^rd party agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party raised work order for Rs.1,17,000/- and promised delivery of the car within 15 days after repair. However he had not repaired within 15 days and the 2^nd Opposite Party told that he is unable to get some spare parts and he had placed order with the authorized dealer. Finally the 2^nd Opposite Party delivered the car on 16.04.2014 and the 1^st Opposite Party paid the amount to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the difference amount was paid by the Complainant to him. After taking delivery, he made test drive on the road worthiness and shocked to detect the car produced  different noise and even after brake was applied and halted the car with great difficult to bring down the speed under control. Hence the Complainant decided to leave the car in different service station as he cannot trust any more the 2^nd Opposite Party and accordingly, the Complainant left the car with some other service station. They raised bill for a some of Rs.49,000/-  to rectify the defects and also the Complainant got rectified the car from him. The 1^st Opposite Party without ascertaining the genuineness and reliability of the 2^nd Opposite Party coerced the Complainant to hand over the car to the 2^nd Opposite Party and cleared the bills. Therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed Deficiency in Service and not repairing car properly by the 2^nd Opposite Party and therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

            The Complainant had obtained policy No.3368/00557188000/01 covering his Tata Indica vehicle for the period 29.12.2013 to 28.12.2014 for a total value of Rs.3,24,000/-.  The Opposite Party had undertaken to pay cost of repairs due to accidental damage, subject to deductions for depreciation, policy Excess etc. Thus this Opposite Party is only liable to pay the cost of repairs.  The Opposite Party does not recommend that repairs should be done by any particular repairer. The Complainant is free to choose any repairer and the Opposite Party would consider settlement of claim based on cost of repairs attributable to accidental damage. The allegations in the Complaint as if this Opposite Party recommended the vehicle to be left with the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties for repair are absolutely false and baseless. The Complainant reported claim for damage to the vehicle due to accident on 03.02.2014. By his own choice the Complainant had left the vehicle with the 2^nd Opposite Party for repairs was admittedly effected and the repair bill submitted for Rs.92,464/- dated 28.02.2014  by the 2^nd Opposite Party.     This Opposite Party considered the bills and after adjustment of the accident related repairs alone, paid Rs.83,485/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 24.03.2014  after due survey. The Complainant had paid the difference of Rs.27,785/- and taken delivery of the vehicle subsequently. This Opposite Party is unaware that the vehicle subsequently broke down or that it was left for repairs with the 2^nd Opposite Party. This Opposite Party has no liability for such break down or repairs. The transaction between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party after taking delivery of the vehicle has no connection or concern with his Opposite Party. Therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE  2^nd  & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant’s car met with an accident and sustained damage at the right hand side of the body of the car. The damaged car was run upto 1,11,960 kms when came to the Opposite Party’s workshop. The car came for body repair services only and there was no Complaint about mechanical services of any nature whatsoever. It is true that the 1^st Opposite Party referred damaged car to the 2^nd Opposite Party to do body repair works. The work after written approval by the insurance Surveyor appointed by M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd., The Surveyor explained the depreciation details at the same time of work commencement as mentioned in the policy. Then the 2^nd Opposite Party raised the work order for Rs.1,17,000/- towards cost of servicing and to replace the damaged and  dented spare – parts to make the car roadworthy. It is pertinent to mention here that, the car was handed over to the Complainant in a roadworthy condition and the Complainant himself has signed the satisfaction memo about the roadworthiness of the car. The 2^nd Opposite Party informed that they are unable to get some spare parts in the local market and they have placed orders with the authorized dealers will reach them within two weeks and asked the Complainant to come after two weeks to take delivery. It is also denied that thereafter, the 2^nd Opposite Party fleeced him several times claiming one reason or other and the Complainant was vexed to see same fate again and again. The Opposite Party 2 was in regular touch with the Complainant and was updating the Complainant with the repair status of the car. The total bill was Rs.1,11,385/- which was even lesser to the estimated amount. This Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

4.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is running a travel         agency  for rent and for that purpose he purchased  Indica car bearing Registration No.TN-18-H-7251  and the said car was met with an accident and front portion of the car was damaged and further the Complainant insured the car with the 1^st Opposite Party under Ex.A1 policy schedule cum certificate of insurance and the car was left by the Complainant  with the 2^nd Opposite Party for service provider for repairing the car and the 2^nd Opposite Party raised Ex.A3 bill amount for a sum of Rs.92,464/- and the 1^st Opposite Party/ insurance  company paid an amount of Rs.83,600/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant has paid balance amount to the 2^nd Opposite Party and took delivery of the vehicle from 2^nd Opposite Party.

          5. The Complainant alleged deficiency that immediately he took delivery of the car after repair from the 2^nd Opposite Party,  he went for test drive to test the  road worthiness and was shocked to detect that some indifferent noises which is something unusual heard by him and car doors were replaced with one inferior quality and hence the car was not in good condition and further even after applying brake, he found difficult to stop to car and after great difficult  by bringing down the speed the car was under control.

          6. The Opposite Parties 2 & 3 would contend that as per   Ex.A2  right side car only damaged as per the job details furnished in the document and beyond that he had not done any service for mechanical defect and other things and therefore they have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7. As for as the 1^st Opposite Party concerned he had paid the amount as per the policy what could be paid by him. The Complainant alleged as per the recommendation of the 1^st Opposite Party   he had entrusted the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party and he has not attended defects properly. However the 1^st Opposite Party though denies that he had not recommended leaving the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party himself admitted in the written version that the 1^st Opposite Party only referred the damage car to him. Anyhow merely the 1^st Opposite Party referred the car to the 2^nd Opposite Party; it does not mean that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          8. It is the will of the Complainant to leave the car to any service provider and the 1^st Opposite Party would pay the amount as per the repair bill provided by the repairer. Therefore we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          9. As per Ex.A2, Job sheet vehicle receiving form, below the heading of job details the damages found in the vehicle has been mentioned. The damages recorded are actually found only on the right hand side of the vehicle. Particularly in the job sheet details nothing mentioned about the engine or any other mechanical defects.

10. The 2^nd Opposite Party would contend that he had repaired only body of the vehicle as per the job details furnished in Ex.A2 and he had not repaired in connection with any mechanical defects. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the 2^nd Opposite Party that he heard different noise in the vehicle and inferior quality materials were replaced in the door and car was unable to stop after   applying break. The cars makes different noises means, it should be only in the engine. How that noise came, from where it has come, absolutely there is no evidence on the part of the Complainant. Further inferior quality materials are used for replacing the doors also there is no acceptable evidence forthcoming on behalf of the Complainant. The 2^nd Opposite Party as per the job details in Ex.A2 he had not attended any work on the brake. Therefore, absolutely no evidence forthcoming on behalf of the Complainant to accept that the 2^nd Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service in repairing the body of the vehicle as per the job details furnished by the Complainant in Ex.A2. Mere statement of the Complainant is not sufficient to prove that different noises came from the car. Apart from that the Complainant should have adduced any mechanical or expert evidence to establish the car made different noise. Therefore, as per the forgoing discussions we hold that the Complainant has not proved deficiency committed by the Opposite Parties and hence, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

 11.POINT :2      

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18^th   day of November 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 29.12.2013                   Motor policy Schedule cum Certificate of

                                                    Insurance

 

Ex.A2 dated 03.02.2014                   Body shop vehicle Receiving Form

 

Ex.A3 dated 20.03.2014                   Invoice issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 02.04.2014                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.A5 dated 16.04.2014                   Receipt issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 29.04.2014                   Repair Estimate

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 10.07.2014                   The authorization letter issued by the Opposite

                                                 Parties 2 & 3

 

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     The Insurance Policy of Cholamandalam bearing

                                                 No.3368/00557188/000/01

 

Ex.B3 dated 03.02.2014                   The motor claim form

Ex.B4 dated 03.02.2014                   The body shop receiving form

Ex.B5 dated 04.02.2014                   The Estimate for Repair

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B6 dated NIL                     Discharge Voucher

Ex.B7 dated NIL                     Survey Report

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT