SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/S35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.21,478/- with interest to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation together with cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that it is submitted that the Motor bike (Honda CB Shine) bearing No. KL 59S6558 owned by complainant was purchased from OP No.1on 02/08/2018. The said vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., OP No.2 with policy No.220521823120049668 for the period from 02/08/2018 to 01/08/2019 and the sum assured was Rs.59,800/-. The insurance was arranged by thee OP No.1 at the time of selling the vehicle. The complainant submitted that the above said Motor bike bearing No. KL 59 S 6558 met with an accident on 20/03/2019 at 8 A.M. at Mavunchal in Vellad village. After the accident immediately this fact was informed to OP No.1 and as per the direction of OP No.1 on 23/03/2019 the vehicle was taken to the service centre (OP1). The OP No.1 had received the vehicle on an assurance that the work would be completed within 2 months. But they failed to keep their words and the repaired bike was handed over only after 5 months ie on 26/08/2019. The estimate cost of the repair work was 57,330/- and did not complete the repair work as agreed. The act of the OP No.1 is nothing but deficiency in his service. Even though the sum assured was Rs.59,800/- the OPs allowed only Rs.35,852/- as claim amount and the balance amount of Rs.21,478/- was collected from the complainant. The amount was collected against terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, so there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 also. It is submitted that the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice and claiming the balance amount of Rs.21,478/- from both OPs together with compensation. OPs received the lawyer notice on 09/06/2020 and 10/06/2020 respectively. But they failed to make the payment as demanded by the complainant so far. Hence the complaint.
OPs 1 and 2 filed separate written versions OP No.1 contended that this OP further submits that said Motor cycle brought for repair work after major accident. It s submitted that the condition of vehicle was such that almost all the parts were damaged and required to bring parts from the manufacturer. It is not correct that this OP had given assurance of completing the work within two months. By verifying the condition of damaged vehicle it is impossible to give such an offer/assurance as alleged. So the time consuming is not a negligence of deficiency in service. These statements also denied by this OP that till completing the repair work, the complainant has visited this OP 72 times and hired an auto rickshaw for travelling. In fact this OP has no role in preparing the estimate of loss/damage. The loss of the vehicle is calculated by the Insurance company and they will decide whether total loss or not. In this case the complainant has taken much more time to give sanction for repair option of insurance company. Here the complainant has confirmed repair option after the long delay. Further the complainant has not given the request to RTO immediately and took number of days to hand over the request to RTO. It is submitted that after receiving the approval for changing the chassis from RTO, starts the repair work and changing of parts. In this case around 80 parts has to change. A major part has to be obtained from manufacturer either form Chennai or Rajasthan. This also required/take time. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
OP No.2 the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., submitted that The OP admits that the vehicle NO.KL 59 S 6558 was insured with the OP at the time of alleged accident dated 20/03/2019. But the coverage under the said policy is limited as per the endorsements, conditions and limitations of the policy and the stipulations of the M V Act. The OP2 disputes the damages and other expenses alleged to have been sustained to the vehicle bearing No. KL 59 S 6558, labour charges, towing charges, cost of spare parts etc. as alleged in the petition. Indemnity is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and deductions. The assessment of loss is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The calculation of loss is subject to depreciation and deduction of certain components specifically excluded by the terms and conditions. There was no denial of claim by OPs as alleged in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the OPs in settling the claim of the complaint. He is not entitled to ask for Rs.21,478/- with interest. The complainant not entitled to any amount being the compensation for mental agony and hardship. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
At the evidence time complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Pw1 and marked Exts.A1 to A11. After that the learned counsels of complainants and OP No.2 made oral argument.
In this case, the admitted facts are (a) complainant is the RC owner of Motor bike bearing No. KL 59S6558 purchased form OP No.1 on 02/08/2018. (b) the said vehicle insured with OP No.2 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for a period from 02/08/2018 to 01/08/2019 and the sum assured was Rs.59,800/-. (c) the vehicle in dispute met with an accident on 20/03/2019 and after the accident the vehicle was taken to the service centre of OP No.1 and informed to OP No.2.(d) Policy of the vehicle was in force during the accident date. Further the surveyor and loss assessor inspected the vehicle and assessed an amount of Rs.35,852/- as loss assessed to the vehicle and the said amount was given by OPNo.2. Complainant’s 1st allegation is that OP No.1 had received the vehicle on an assurance that the work would be completed within 2 months; but they failed to keep their words and the repaired bike was handed over only after 5 months. Complainant alleged that during the period the complainant constrained to visit OP No.1’s work shop 72 times for demanding the completion of the work but the vehicle was given after repair work only after 5 months. Complainant alleged that the action of OP 1 amounts to deficiency in their service. Further the estimate cost of the repair work was57,330/-. The allegation raised in the complaint against OP No.2 is that even though the sum assured was Rs.59,800/- the OPs allowed only Rs.35,852/- as claim amount and the balance amount of Rs.21,478/- was collected from the complainant. According to the complainant the balance amount was collected against terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, so there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 also. Through the complaint the complainant is claiming the balance amount of Rs.21,478/- from both OPs together with compensation and cost of the proceedings of this case.
During the pendency of this case, OP No.2 Insurance company has submitted D/D of Rs.10,000/- towards their payment as per the 1st prayer portion of the complaint, and complainant has received it. According to OP No.2 though the surveyor’s assessment was Rs.35,852/- only, they have paid Rs.10,000/- as a settlement manner. Though none of the parties submitted surveyor’s report, Pw1 admitted that OP No.2 had paid the surveyor assessed amount without any delay and on the account, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2. Further Pw1 admitted that the wants to get compensation as claimed in the complaint, from OP NO.1 for the delay in delivery of the repaired vehicle. Though the complainant claims, total loss of the vehicle due to the accident, no evidence is available before us to substantiate said allegation. Ext.A10 the job card shows that the total repaired amount comes Rs.57,330/-, out of which OP2 paid Rs.35,852/- without any delay and after filing this complaint OP2 paid Rs.10,000/- to complainant. Since there is no evidence to show that the job done in the vehicle as per Ext.A10 was only related to the accident happened to the vehicle as alleged in this case, and further there is no other loss assessment report of an authorized person, we also accept the contention of OP No.2. Further as OP No.2 paid Rs.10,000/- in addition to the surveyor assessed amount, our view is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 Insurance company.
With regard to OP No.1 the service centre, he has not denied the allegation of the complainant that, the vehicle was entrusted to him for repair work on 23/03/2019 and it was returned after the repair work on 26/08/2019. OP No.1 contended that the delay was happened due to the delay from the side of complainant to give sanction for repair option of insurance company. According to OP No.1, the complainant has confirmed repair option after the long delay. Further the complainant has not given the request to RTO immediately and took number of days to hand over the request to RTO and the approval of RTO for changing the chassis of the vehicle. Further major parts of the vehicle to be repaired had to be obtained from manufacturer either from Chennai or Rajasthan. This also required time.
During cross examination Pw1 admitted some delay happened from the side of OP No.1 was not due to the intentional delay from the side of OP No.1, delay of 4,5 months in returning the repaired vehicle is a will fall latches and negligence on the part of OP No.1. Here OP No.1 failed to explain the delay of 4-5 months happened not due to his fault, by entering into the witness box for tendering evidence. The contention in the written version itself is not sufficient. Hence considering the overall evidence, we are of the opinion that the delay of 4-5 months in delivering the repaired vehicle to a customer having no other vehicle to travel for his livelihood work will cause physical and mental agony. So without any plausible explanation, we are of the view that there is deficiency on the part of OP No.1. Ext.A10 shows that complainant had paid Rs.21,478/- to OP No.1 for getting the vehicle in repaired condition.
In the result complaint is allowed in part, opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.11,478/- (ie the balance amount after deducting Rs.10,000/- from 21,478/-) to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards cost to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing, which the awarded amount, except cost ordered, carries interest @12% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts
A1-Booking form dated 31/07/2018
A2-RC copy
A3-Insurance policy
A4-Tax invoice dated 26/08/2019 (subject to proof)
A5-Copy of lawyer notice
A6-Postal receipt
A7- Postal receipt of OP No.2
A8- Acknowledgment card
A9- Acknowledgment card
A10- Cash receipt
A11- Job card (issued by OP No.1)
Pw1- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
