KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 722/2004 JUDGMENT DATED 22-12-2007 PRESENT: JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Medayil Complex, Medamukku, Kayamkulam 690 502 : APPELLANT Represented by its Branch Manager (By Adv. Sri. S. Sankaranarayana Iyer) V. 1. C.K. Johny, S/o. Late Geevarghese Kochandy, Chooralvettathu House, Venmony P.O., Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha Dist. – 689 509. : RESPONDENTS (By Adv. Sri. C.K. Thomas) 2. The Branch Manager, M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Puthenthura P.O., Neendakara, Kollam – 691 588. (By Adv. Smt. S. Laila) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the Insurance Company/opposite party in O.P. 214/02 in the file of the CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 18,745/- plus Rs. 68,224/- together with interest @ 9% from 2.8.2000 and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 500/-. The above order is challenged herein. The case of the complainant before the Forum is that the Fiat Uno Car having a comprehensive insurance coverage, on 17.2.2000 fell into an irrigation canal and the same was taken out and brought out to a nearby garage. Thereafter the authorized service center was intimated as well as the Insurance Company. The surveyor of the insurer inspected the vehicle and subsequently approved the estimate including labour charges. When the claim was made after the repairs are over and the vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant after paying the repair charges, the appellants retreated from the earlier stand and declined to pay the amount except Rs. 18,745/-. The balance amount is Rs. 68,224/- including labour charges. Hence the above attitude of the appellants amounts to deficiency of service and liable to be ordered to be reimbursed. The contention of the appellant is that before the insurance surveyor reached the spot, the mechanic of the workshop, to where the vehicle was taken after the incident had attempted to start the vehicle with water inside the engine and thereafter dismantled the engine, AC parts etc. and that it was on account of the negligent manner in which the vehicle was attempted to be start etc. that the vehicle happened to be damaged. According to the appellant, the above repairs are to be categorized as a consequential loss and liable to be compensated by the Insurance Company. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to P17, RWs 1 &2 and Exts. B1 to B9. We find that the most relevant piece of evidence is that of RW1, the surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the authorized workshop allegedly on 15.3.2000, 19.3.2000 and 4.4.2000. It is not disputed that the vehicle after repairs was delivered to the complainant on 22.4.2000. The final survey report Ext. B4 is dated 2.5.2000. It is in the final survey report that RW1 has raised the contention that the repairs to the extent of the amount disputed by the Insurance Company was caused on account of the negligent manner in which the repairs were attempted to be carried out at the workshop. But as noted by the Forum in Ext. P4 what RW1 has mentioned is that the engine was dismantled in the presence of the surveyor ie., the first surveyor. It is not mentioned in Ext. B4 that the consequential loss was caused as the engine was attempted to be started with water inside the engine, which is the contention stressed by the appellant. Of course, Ext. B6, spot survey report dt: 1.3.2000 mentions that the particular surveyor inspected the vehicle on 23.2.2000 and found that the vehicle was found in dismantled condition. But we find that the spot survey was conducted at the TVS workshop, the authorized workshop of the manufacturer. In Ext. B6 report there is no statement to the effect that the workshop mechanics had attempted to start the vehicle etc. and that they dismantled the engine. Apart from the fact that the surveyor, who submitted Ext. B6 report was not examined it is evident from Ext. B6 report that the dismantling was done at M/s. TVS Sundaram & Sons, which is the authorized workshop. Hence we find that the contention of the appellant that the damages to the engine was caused on account of starting the engine with water inside and attempted to repair in a negligent manner stands demolished. As mentioned in the judgment of the Forum and as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent/complainant, it is seen in Ext. P3 estimate prepared by the TVS Workshop that the RW1, the surveyor has endorsed the items of work to be made on the vehicle and also labour charges of Rs. 8,750/-, of which only Rs. 3,750/- has been sanctioned by the appellant subsequently. It is also seen from Ext. P3 estimate that the same contains recitals to the effect that the repairs were carried out only after approval by the surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company. The approval was given by the surveyor RW1, but in the witness box he has attempted to evade the same by mentioning that he just assessed the loss and not approved the work. His version in the witness box appears to be incorrect and false. In these circumstances and in the light of the above facts brought out, we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for except the fact with the direction to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is not required as the Forum has directed the appellant to pay interest @ 9%. Hence the order of the Forum with respect to the payment of compensation is set aside and the rest of the order of the Forum is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN, MEMBER AT. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 722/2004 JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.07 AT. | 
