KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.819/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED :17.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.224/2016 on the file of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.224/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2.       The appellant challenges the order passed by the District Commission directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.59,477/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with 9% interest to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) with a further direction to pay 12% interest on default.

3.       The complainant is the respondent herein.  The complainant is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. KL 7/BG-3262 which met with an accident on 08.02.2016.  In order to repair the said vehicle, the complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,06,492/-(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only).  Immediately after the accident, the matter was reported to the opposite party with whom the vehicle was insured during the relevant period.  Thereafter, the complainant duly made the claim to the opposite party who paid only an amount of Rs.47,015/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand and Fifteen only) without any explanation.  In the said circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4.       Notice was served on the opposite party.  However, the opposite party did not incline to appear or contest the case before the District Commission.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked for the complainant.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to pay the amount as aforesaid.

5.       Notice was served on the respondent.  However, the respondent has no representation.

6.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

7.       It is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was having a valid insurance coverage on 08.02.2016 when the accident occurred.  The complainant got the repairing works of the vehicle done through an authorised service centre for an amount of Rs.1,06,492/-(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only). 

8.       It is not disputed that the opposite party paid only an amount of Rs.47,015/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand and Fifteen only) towards repairing charges.  Exhibit P9 would show that the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.1,06,492/-(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only) for repairing the vehicle.

9.       We have gone through Exhibits P1 to P8 which are the invoice bills.  The total of Exhibits P1 to P8 would come to Rs.1,04,992/-(Rupees One Lakh Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two only).  It is also to be noted that the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is Rs.1,00,625/-(Rupees One Lakh Six Hundred and Twenty Five only) as per Exhibit P11 insurance policy. Therefore, the ordered amount should not have exceeded the Insured Declared Value (IDV).  However, in this case, the District Commission ordered to pay an amount of Rs.59,477/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Seven only), which was the amount obtained by subtracting the amount of Rs.47,015/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand and Fifteen only) already paid by the opposite party from the total amount  of Rs.1,06,492/-(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only) claimed by the complainant. Thus, the amount ordered by the District Commission was more than the Insured Declared Value (IDV) as per Exhibit P11. 

10.     It is settled law that even though the opposite party remains ex-parte, the Commission is duty bound to evaluate the evidence and find out the truthfulness of the claim before passing the order allowing the claim.  Merely because the opposite party decides not to contest the case, it cannot be said that the commission need not evaluate the evidence, before allowing the claim. In this case, it appears that since the opposite party remained ex-parte, the District Commission had casually and mechanically  passed the order impugned without due appreciation of the evidence and in the said circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed.  The order impugned stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to the complainant of being heard.  Since the opposite party did not file any version, the right of the opposite party will be confined only to cross-examination as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Narsinhbai Patel vs S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited reported in 2024 KHC Online 6386.

The appellant shall appear before the District Commission on 03.02.2025.  Needless to state that the District Commission shall issue notice to the complainant before disposing of the complaint as aforesaid.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgement.

SL