KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.224/13

JUDGMENT DATED:16.07.2014

PRESENT:HON.JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT

H.D.F.C.Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd,

4^TH FLOOR, K.G.Oxford Business Centre,                     -      Appellant

Ravipuram, Kochi – 682 106.R/by its Manager-Legal.

(By Adv: Sri.Ullas Sudhakaran)

   Vs

1. Dr.Manju Issac,

        W/o.Dr.Binoy K.John,

        Manava Nagar,

        Reshmi, Kanniampuram, Ottappalam,

        Palakkad – 679 101.                

                                                                             -        Respondents

2.     The Service Manager,

        Sitaram Motors

        N.H.bye Pass Road, Chandra Nagar P.O,

        Palakkad 678 007

3      Chief General Manager ,

        Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Palam,

        Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon,

        Haryana State- 376 377.

(By Adv: Sri. Manoj Ambat)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 3^rd opposite party in CC/29/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated on December 22, 2012.

2.       The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief  is this:

A Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KL-7/BF-8686 belonging to the complainant was damaged in an accident on August 28, 2010 and the same was entrusted with 1^st opposite party for repairs which was the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party.  The car was insured with the 3^rd opposite party.  Even after repeated requests 1^st opposite party did not submit the bills before the 3^rd opposite party for claiming the insurance amount.  Only on April 16, 2011 1^st opposite party sent a letter stating that the bill amount is Rs.2,44,651/-.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of  Rs.4,25,000/-.

3.       The 1^st opposite party is M/s.Sitaram Motors, Palakkad represented by its Service Manager who in his version contented thus before the Forum:  It is admitted that the complainant entrusted with 1^st opposite party the car of the complainant for repairs on August 28, 2010.  As the documents were handed over only September 14, 2010 job card was prepared on that date.  As the car was totally damaged spare parts have to be obtained from Gurgaon.   Therefore work was completed only on April 16, 2011.  This opposite party was ready to deliver the vehicle provided the bill is settled. 

4.       The 2^nd opposite party is M/s.Maruthi Suzuki India Limited, Gurgaon represented by its Chief General Manager who in his version contented that he is an unnecessary part in this proceedings.

5.       The 3^rd opposite party/appellant is M/s.HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Kochi represented by its Manager Legal.  He in his version before the Forum contented thus:  Immediately after the accident this opposite party deputed the Surveyor to assess the damages of the vehicle.  Complainant and 1^st opposite party failed to produce documents in time.  The vehicle was also not made available for re inspection after repair.  Therefore this opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant.

6.       Ext A1 to Ext.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties produced Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed an application seeking the release of the vehicle from 1^st opposite party.  As per the order in that IA 3^rd opposite party deposited 1,38,168/- and complainant deposited 1,06,489/-.  The Commissioner who inspected the vehicle found some defects.  Ext.C1 is the report.  The Forum directed the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs.2,44,650/- to 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party was directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and 2^nd opposite party was exonerated from liability.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 were directed to pay a cost of Rs.4,000/- to complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

7.       Heard counsels for the appellant  and  complainant.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 who are the respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal remained absent in this appeal.

8.       The following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of    opposite parties 1 and 3?
2. Whether the  impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?   

9.       It is admitted that the car bearing registration No.KL-7/BF- 8686 belonging to the complainant was damaged in an accident on Aug 28,2010, and the same was entrusted with the 1^st opposite party for repairs and that repair was completed only on April 16, 2011.  It is clear from the above that there is inordinate delay in completing the repairs and submitting the bills to 3^rd opposite party the insurance company.  The case of the 1^st opposite party is that there was difficulty in getting the spare parts of the vehicles and hence the delay which is not at all proved.  Therefore it has to be held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

10.     The counsel for the appellant/third opposite party submitted that the insurance company is prepared to pay Rs.1,30,168/- being the amount assessed by the surveyor and that they have already deposited the amount before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced on the side of the complainant or on the side of the 1^st opposite party to show that there was any mistake in the cost of repairs assessed by the surveyor.  Therefore 3^rd opposite party has to pay that amount to the 1^st opposite party.

11.     The complainant has deposited Rs.1,06,489/- before the Forum which he is entitled to take back as it is found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and a cost of Rs.4,000/- before the Forum and Rs.5,000/- in this appeal.  Complainant can withdraw that same from the amount deposited by the 3^rd opposite party,

In the result Appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum as modified as follows: Rs.1,38,168/- deposited by the 3^rd opposite party before the Forum shall be paid to the 1^st opposite party after deducting the amount due to the complaint.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.  He is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.4,000/- before the Forum and Rs.5,000/- for this appeal.  Complainant can withdraw that amount from the amount deposited by third opposite party.

JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT

VL.