O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):

                 The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                 2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:  Complainant had purchased a Tata Sumo Gold Ex-vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.6,46,005/-.  All services to the said vehicle is done by the 3^rd opposite party.  4^th opposite party is the insurer of the said vehicle.  Complainant used the vehicle as a taxi for his livelihood.

                 3. After the 4^th free service, complainant transferred the vehicle to Bharati Airtel Company for operating as a taxi under contract terms.  On 29-03-2013 the above said vehicle was parked on the car porch of his friend Mr. Shajahan Kuruvila.  On 30-10-2013 when the driver tried to start the vehicle, fumes came out from the right side of the vehicle and vehicle caught fire suddenly and there by the vehicle totally damaged.  The matter was informed to the Pathanamthitta Police and Police registered a crime as 1632/2013 and conducted enquiry for the same, and found that the fire was occurred due to the damage of the parts.

                 4. Vehicle was brought to the M.K. Motors, Kottayam for repairing but they informed that vehicle was totally damaged and therefore repairing is not possible.

                 5. 4^th opposite party inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and realized that the vehicle is not repairable. Even though the I.D.V of the vehicle is Rs.5,40,000/-, 4^th opposite party have paid only Rs.2,24,000/-.  Complainant is entitled for getting the I.D.V because the vehicle is totally damaged.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, for which they are liable to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for getting the balance I.D.V amount of Rs.3,16,000/- from the 4^th opposite party and Rs.1,06,005/- from opposite parties 1 to 3 and a total amount of Rs.8,07,005/- under various heads along with the cost from opposite parties.  All opposite parties except 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed separate versions. 

6. 3^rd  opposite party  is exparte.

                 7. 1^st opposite party field version with the following contentions:  Complainant in this case is admittedly operating his vehicle as a taxi engaging paid drivers he can’t be treated as a consumer as defined under the Act.  When the complainant brought his vehicle to the 4^th periodic service neither he had raised a complaint with respect to electrical fittings/wiring in the vehicle nor had the service personnel in the workshop of this opposite party noticed any complaint in this regard.  Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after being convinced of the work done and expressing satisfaction over the same.  After 4^th periodic service, the complainant had at no point of time either brought his vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party or had contacted this opposite party pursuant to the alleged fire accident that occurred to the vehicle on 30-10-2013.  The allegation of the complainant that the fire accident occurred only on account of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle is incorrect and against facts.  This opposite party is no way liable for the alleged payment of the insurance company.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service from 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party prays for dismissing the complaint.

                 8. 2^nd opposite party filed version with the following contentions:  2^nd opposite party is totally an unnecessary party to this case as there is no specific complaint of deficiency in service against them.  It is evident from the complaint itself that the loss occurred to the vehicle was duly compensated by the insurance company.  The complainant has no consistent case and that is why he has filed this complaint against all this parties.  With the above contention, 2^nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                 9. 4^th opposite party filed version with the following contentions:  4^th opposite party admit that alleged vehicle damaged in a fire occurrence on 30-10-2013 which was insured with them.  Complainant preferred a claim and it was duly processed.  The vehicle was inspected the surveyor and damage was assessed.  The damage was assessed as Rs.2,25,000/-  on cash loss basis.  After mutual discussion and negotiation the complainant agreed to the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and accepted the said amount as full and final settlement.  After receiving the amount complainant filed this case experimentally.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service from the part of the 4^th opposite party.

                 10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                 11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

        12. The point:-  The complainant filed this complaint for getting remaining insured declared value of Rs.3,16,000/-  form the 4^th opposite party and for getting a total amount of Rs.8,07,005/- under various heads from the opposite parties in connection with damage sustained to his car bearing Reg.No.KL-03-V-4473.  The said vehicle was totally damaged due to fire on 30-10-2013, and the said fire incident was occurred due to its  mechanical defect, but the 4^th opposite party paid only Rs.2,24,000/- from the I.D.V of Rs.5,40,000/-.  Due to the said incident complainant had sustained loss and damages of Rs.8,07,005/- in addition to the loss in not getting the full I.D.V.  Hence this complainant prays for allowing the complaint. 

         13. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 6 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6.  Ext.A1 is the registration certificate of KL.03-V-4473 dated 23-04-2012.  Ext A2 is the contract carriage permit in the name of the complainant dated 28-11-2013.  Ext.A3 is the F.I.R registered by the Pathanamthitta Police dated 30-10-2013.  Ext.A4 is the Tax Invoice of Tata Motors dated 27-02-2013.  Ext.A5 is the Tax invoices of Kulathunkal Motors dated 09-04-2012.  Ext.A6 is the General Insurance Policy of Reliance dated 30-04-2013.

                 14. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had insured the vehicle with the 4^th opposite party.  The alleged vehicle has no technical defect up to 4^th service.  After the fire accident, complainant placed a claim form, which was duly processed and damage was assessed as Rs.2,25,000/- and complainant accepted the amount as full and final settlement.  After receiving the amount complainant filed this complaint experimentally.  Therefore, opposite parties are not liable to the complainant.

                 15. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 1^st opposite party’s service manager filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1.  4^th opposite party produced one document and which is marked as Ext.B1 through the complainant while cross examination.  Ext.B1 is the consent letter executed between the complainant and 4^th opposite party dated 03-03-2014.   

                  16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the damages of the vehicle and the validity of the policy.   According to the complainant, even though the I.D.V of the vehicle is Rs.5,40,000/-, 4^th opposite party had paid only Rs.2,24,000/- from the I.D.V.  Moreover, the alleged fire incident occurred due to the technical defects of the vehicle.  But opposite parties contention is that the damage sustained to the petitioner was assessed on cash loss basis as Rs.2,25,000/- and after mutual discussion complainant admitted the same and accepted the amount by executing consent letter.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the I.D.V. amount.

                 17. In this case, complainant has raised an allegation  that the damage was due to technical defect of the vehicle.  But he has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that the car has any technical defect at the time of the incident.  Therefore that allegation is not sustainable.  Moreover, up to the 4^th service of vehicle he did not raised such a complaint to the opposite parties.

       18. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the complainant and perused the record.  On going through Ext.B1, admittedly in the instant case, the complainant received a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- against his insurance claim and signed the consent letter.  Complainant has accepted the amount offered by the insurance company without any protest.  Moreover, complainant has not established that he accepted the amount under influence, misrepresentation or fraud played by Insurance Company.  His deposit is as follows.  “Ext.B1സ്വമനസ്സാലെ ഒപ്പിട്ട് നല്കിയതാണ്”.  Ext.B1 നല്കിയതിനുശേഷം opposite party 4-നെതിരെ യാതൊരു പരാതിയും ഇവിടെ ഫയല് ചെയ്ത കേസ് അല്ലാതെ എങ്ങും നല്കിയിട്ടില്ല”.  So it is clear that Ext.B1 is accepted by the complainant without any protest. 

                 19. Although it is well settled that once the insured has received the amount in full and final settlement of his insurance claim and executed the discharge voucher, he can’t be permitted to re-agitate for his claim unless the insured is able to establish that the discharge voucher was obtained by the opposite parties undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or coercion.  Further the complainant has not adduced any evidence against any opposite parties for proving his allegations against them.

                 20. In view of the above, we don’t find any deficiency in service from the opposite parties. 

                 21. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

                 Declared in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of November, 2014.

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                        K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                           (Member - I)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)       :  (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)    :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Vishnu. V. Nair

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of Registration certificate of KL.03-V-4473  

        dated 23-04-2012. 

A2 :  Photocopy of contract carriage permit in the name of the  

        complainant dated 28-11-2013. 

A3 :  Photocopy of F.I.R registered by the Pathanamthitta  

        Police dated 30-10-2013. 

A4 :  Photocopy of Tax Invoice of Tata Motors dated 27-02-

        2013. 

A5 : Photocopy of invoices of Kulathunkal Motors dated

       09-04-2012. 

A6 : General Insurance Policy of Reliance dated 30-04-2013.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Niju Thomas John

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Consent letter executed between the complainant and 4^th  

        opposite party dated 03-03-2014.  

                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:-    (1) Vishnu. B. Nair, Kaleelil Veedu, Iravon.P.O.,

                       Konni Taluk.

1.  Focus Automobiles Service Ltd.,

              Kozhencherry – 689 641.

1.  Kulathumkal Motors, Trivandrum Bypass Road,

              Thiruvananthapuram – 695 029.

1.  Tata Motors Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Tatus Towers,

              NH Bypass Road, Padivattom, Cochin – 682 024.

1.  The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

              1^st Floor, Kannanethu Estate, Pathanamthitta.

        (6)  The Stock File.