<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops is, that she had purchased a Maruti Swift ZXi car which was insured with Op No.2 and a policy was issued. That car met with an accident on 10/07/2007 at Vellore and she had given that car for repairs and service to Op No.1. Communication problem between Op No.1 and 2 forced her to get the car repaired. Though loss was major, Op No.2 denied her request for total loss stating that total repair liability does not exceed 75% of the IDV value. Value of the car was Rs.4,79,000/-, repair cost was Rs.4,47,326/- and resale value of the car was 2.6 lakhs. The car after repair was delivered to her by first Op on 20/01/2008 after 7 months 11 days. Initially she was told that car can be repaired within 2 months. That she approached Op No.1 very often. That survey work by Op No.2 started in November 2007 and that Op No.1 had agreed to deliver the vehicle on 31/01/2008 sent a fax, that he would deliver the vehicle on that day. After taking delivery of the repaired car she got it checked with RNS motors, Bangalore which revealed that chassis of the car has rusted as it was parked outside the show room. That Op No.2 was not ready to pay for certain parts which were replaced by Op No.1. Op No.2 did not bear the cost of one door, two wheel rims and dash board panel and then blamed Op No.1 for it. The Op No.2 rejected total damage proposal of Op No.1 she had to pay entire repair amount. That Op No.2 escaped from paying entire repair charges. That Op No.1 has not accounted for tank full of petrol she got filled to the petrol tank of the car prior to the accident and Op No.1 delayed the delivery of the vehicle for 7½ months and therefore has prayed for allowing the complaint and to direct Ops to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh each.<br /> <br /> Ops 1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed version. Op No.1 in his version admitted to had received complainant’s car for repair has denied any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. This Op denied to had promised the complainant of delivering the car within the stipulated period and stated that estimate of repairs and receipts given by him revel that completion of the repair depends upon the availability of spare parts and he never delayed the delivery of the car unreasonably. That the complainant after agreeing to the terms and conditions of repair and availability of the spares had given the car for repair to him and stated that he had not given any guarantee for the petrol filled in the petrol tank and stated that petrol must have got evaporated. Admitting to had sent a fax dated 18/01/2008 stated that he had agreed to deliver the vehicle on 31/01/2008 but due to non-availability of some important spare parts he was not able to deliver and that fax was conditional one. Further, contending that he is not accountable for the battery of the car and any engine problem as he is not a manufacturer of them has contended that he has not caused any deficiency, had repaired the car efficiently and delivered it to the complainant and has submitted for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> Op No.2 in the version has contended that the complainant without mentioning any details or heads of alleged loss or damage without quantifying the damages has asked for compensation which is not maintainable. That there is no grievance against them, that the vehicle was insured and got surveyed through surveyor who has assessed damage and the complainant has not taken any objection with regard to assessment of damage by the surveyor except alleging that there is mis-communication between Ops 1 and 2. The complainant has not attributed any deficiency to them. That one door, dash board panel and two wheel rims since had not been damaged were not requiring replacement and they are replaced contrary to the condition of the contract as such they have not paid cost of those spares and stated to have paid corresponding repair charges as per the contract. The second Op denying all other allegations has stated that the complainant has not able to make out any allegations against them and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant, first Op and Manager Claims of the second Op have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of estimate for repairs and copies of bills of the repairs charges besides producing copies of certain correspondences between her and Ops. Op No.2 has produced a copy of insurance policy then estimation of damage prepared by their own surveyor and copy of the report of the survey, with copies of certain correspondences they had with the complainant. Op No.1 has not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op No.1 has caused deficiency in service in not delivering car within the stipulated period after repair and that Op No.2 in not reimbursing the cost of certain parts.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: The claim of the complainant that she was the owner of the car in question that was insured with Op No.2, that met with an accident on 10/07/2007, she got it repaired through Op No.1 and that Op No.2 has reimbursed certain part of repairs cost is not at all in dispute as such it is not in controversy. As it is manifest from the complainant allegations and affidavit evidence filed by the complainant she alleges that after she delivered the car to OP No.1 for repair on 10/07/2007 he delivered it after lapse of 7½ months i.e on 21/02/2008 and stated that the first Op had promised to deliver it on 31/01/2008 but failed to do so. As the result, she could not use her car for her marriage preparation and its chassy got rusted as it had been parked outside the show room and thereby has prayed for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh against Op No.1. But the complainant has not proved any unconditional promise or agreement made or executed by Op No.1 to deliver the vehicle after repairs on 31/01/2008. Op No.1 has contended that as per terms and conditions of the estimation of repairs the complainant had delivered the vehicle to him for repairs and repair was undertaken subject to availability of spare parts. The complainant though relied upon a fax of Op No.1 who had informed the complainant to deliver the vehicle on 31/01/2008 but the fax referred to by the complainant was not free from conditions. The first Op repeatedly has stated that repair work to be completed subject to the availability of the spare parts and he could not complete the repairs due to lack of requiring spare parts. The complainant is therefore is not in a position to prove that the first Op had retained vehicle with him for the sake of repair beyond in agreed period and that is the deficiency of the first Op. The complainant herself though stated to had delivered the vehicle for repair to Op No.1 on the date of the accident but conceded that Op No.2 gave approval for repair during November 2007. Therefore, it can not be said that there was undue delay on the part of Op No.1 in commencing and completing repairs. It is further admitted by the complainant that it is because of communication problems between Op No.1 and 2 that repair work could not be processed as expected. Complainant has not proved what is that communication gap and which Op is at fault.<br /> <br /> <br /> It is further seen from the satisfaction note issued by the complainant to the second Op she has specifically stated that first Op completed repair work to her satisfaction and when the complainant took delivery of the vehicle from Op No.1 on 21/02/2008 did not protest or raise any objection about delay in delivering but for the first time through this complaint has come up with this allegation of delayed delivery. The complainant after having issued a satisfactory repair note to Op No.2 satisfying herself about the repairs done has now in the complaint stated as if when she got the vehicle checked with RNS Motors, Bangalore she realized that Op No.1 had not done certain works satisfactorily and allowed the chassis of the car rusted. In our view it is baseless and unreliable. Even otherwise the complainant has not substantiated by producing any documents of R.N.S Motors and how she is entitle for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh from the Op No.1. The claim of the complainant against Op No.1 in our view is not proved and therefore is to be rejected.<br /> <br /> Coming to the claim of the complainant against Op No.2 is concerned the complainant has simply stated that because of communication problems between Ops 1 and 2 forced her to get the car repaired. It is further alleged that Op No.2 was not ready to pay for certain parts which were replaced by Op No.1. Absolutely no allegations of deficiency in the service of Op No.2 is attributed except contending that Op No.2 has refused to bear the cost of one door, two wheel rims and dash board panel which are covered under the insurance. Therefore, it is clear that non-reimbursement of the cost of these spares by the second Op is stated to be the deficiency in service of Op No.2 and has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh against Op No.2. The complainant has not proved that one door of the car, two wheel rims and dash board panel were damaged in the accident. The second Op through his e-mail dated 10/03/2008 informed the complainant that surveyor after inspection of the vehicle had reported to them that damage to the rear LHS door was not severe enough for replacement and had allowed only for repairs and replacement of two wheel rims was not required have been replaced on the complainant instructions which were not required to be replaced, and dash door had been damaged not due to the accident but while the same was being stripped by the repairs to attend their work and therefore was not included in the assessment. The complainant after receipt of this e-mail has by not disputing it has claimed that the Op No.2 has not reimbursed the cost of those parts. In view of this stand taken by Op No.2 and not denied by complainant, the complainant is not entitle for cost of those parts which were got replaced at her choice. Hence, we find no merit in the allegations of the complainant against the Op No.2 and therefore complaint against Op No.2 is also to be dismissed as the same is devoid of merits. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 22nd April 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />