IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 30^th day of October, 2008

Filed on 16.01.2008

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.08/08

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

1. Smt.Maryamma,                                           1.         Maruti Udyog Limited,

    Santhi Maria,                                                            Registered and Corporate Office,

    Opp. To St.Nicholas Church,                                   11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash,

    Karumadi.P.O, Karumadi Village,                             25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,                                              

    Ambalappuzha Panchayath,                          New Delhi-100 001, Represented by

    Alappuzha District.                                                   its General Manager (Service Division).

                                                                              (By Adv.P.S.Geetha Kumari)

2. Jose Thomas,                                               2.         Indus Motor Co.(p) Ltd,

    S/o C.C.Thomas,                                                     City workshop,

    -do-        -do-                                                          Opposite to Cochin Shipyard, M.G.Road,

    (By Adv.P.V.Thomas)                                             Represented by its Chief Executive Officer ,

Presently Mr.Thomas Kuruvila.

3.         Works Manager,                                 

                                                Indus Motor Co.(p) LTD;

                                                City workshop, Opposite to Cochin Shipyard,

                                                M.G.Road, Cochin,

                                                                                    Represented by its Chief Executive Officer ,

Presently Mr.Eldhose.M.V.

                                                                                    (By Adv.Biju.M.John)

4.         Maruti Zusuki Ltd;,

                                                                              Regional Office, 2^nd Floor,

                                                                              Tutus Tower, N.H.47, Bye pass,

                                                                              Palarivattom, Cochin-24,

                                                                                    Represented by its Regional Service Manager,

Presently Mr.Khera.

(By Adv.P.S.Geetha Kumari)

         O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The case of the complainant is that the 1^st complainant is the registered owner of the Maruthi M 800 vehicle bearing No.K.L-5/K­8087. The said car was being used by the 2^nd complainant, the husband of the 1^st complainant. The complainants, on the allurements by the 3^rd opposite party insured the vehicle with the 3^rd opposite party. On 22^nd June 2007, when the vehicle was driven by the 2^nd complainant, the front portion of the car caught fire. The said accident was duly intimated to the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties. On 25^th June, at the instance of the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the 4^th opposite party for repair. The 2^nd, 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties jointly made the complainant believe that the total estimated cost of repair work is Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand only), and the said amount would be reimbursed by the 3^rd opposite party. On 27^th June, the complainant lodged claim with the 3^rd opposite party. On 27^th September 2007, the 4^th opposite party, obtained Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) from the complainant as advance towards the cost of repair. The 4^th opposite party assured the complainant that the work would be completed within 10^th November 2007. The 4^th opposite party did not keep his word, and due to their negligence and deficiency, the 3^rd opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. What is more, the 2^nd and the 4^th opposite party issued a bill to the complainant for an exorbitant amount as the charges of repair claimed to have been effected in the complainants’ vehicle. The complainant sustained untold mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties. Got aggrieved on this the complainants approached this Forum for relief.

1. Notices were sent. The opposite parties appeared and filed versions. The 1^st and the 4^th opposite parties jointly filed version, and the 2nd and the 3^rd opposite parties also filed joint version. The contention of the 1^st and the 4^th opposite parties is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. The complainant has not impleaded M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to the array of the opposite parties. The complainants never entered into any sort of contract with the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties. The complainant has suppressed material facts. Actually the fire could have been emerged from the LPG fittings, the opposite parties argue. The 4^th opposite parties never furnished to the complainant any estimate of Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand only). They never have effected any sort of assurances to the complainants, and as such there is no obligation on the part of the said opposite parties. The complaint is vexatious as well as frivolous. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

2. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties contention is that as per the estimate the approximate cost of repairing was Rs.1,28,000/-(Rupees one lac twenty eight thousand only), and the same was duly intimated to the complainant. The insurance value of the vehicle was only Rs.85,000/-( Rupees eighty five thousand only). The insurance company issued a letter to the complainant requiring her to produce the concerned records furnishing actual reasons for the claim. But the complainant did not respond to the said letter, the opposite parties submit. The said opposite parties never caused the 2^nd complainant believe that the probable cost of the repair work would be Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand only). The 3^rd opposite party never promised to the complainant that the said amount would be reimbursed by it, for the insurance claim could only be settled in tune with the terms and conditions of the insurance, and that too by an insurance company. The 3^rd opposite party is not an insurance company; hence the prayer ‘c’ against the 3^rd opposite party is unsustainable.

3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the 2^nd complainant as Pw1, and the documents Exbts Al to A18 were marked. Exbt.Al is the literature furnished by the opposite parties, A2 is the job estimate issued by the 3^rd opposite party, A3 is the Job card, A4 is the call centre claim intimation, A5 is the letter from the insurance company, A6 is the copy of the letter the complainant issued to the insurance company, A7 is the letter issued to the opposite party, A8 is the e-mail message, A9 is the letter issued to the opposite parties, Al0 is the copy of the letter the complainant issued to the opposite parties, A11. & A12 are E-mail messages.Al3 is the copy of the letter the complainant issued to the opposite party, A14 & A15 are E-mail messages, Al6 is the invoice, A17 is the print out of the SMS as to the assessment of insurance amount and A18 is the receipt from the opposite party. On the side of the opposite party, 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were examined as Rwl and 2, and the documents B1 to B2 were marked. Exbt B1 is the warranty of the policy and B2 is the certificate cum policy schedule.

4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions come up before us for consideration are:-

(1) whether the accident of the vehicle warrants insurance benefit to the complainants?     (2) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint?

5. The case of the complainants is that their car met with an accident. At the time of the accident, the car was holding a valid insurance with the 3rd opposite party. Immediately after the accident, the car was taken to the 3^rd opposite party's work shop for repair. The complainant lodged a claim with the 3^rd opposite party for the insurance amount. The 3^rd opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the 3^rd opposite party is not an insurance company. It appears that the accident of the car, its repair and lodging of claim are not in dispute. We meticulously perused the entire materials placed on record by the parties. The counsel for the complainant took us through the literature of insurance policy issued by the opposite parties. In the 1^st page of Exbt A1 it is prominently stated with a title ‘faster and fair claim settlement’ - with maruti insurance and there after just beneath with title ‘easy settlement with no follow ups’ for any of the procedure in the run ups to the claim availing, the personal involvement of the customer is not required. Each and every thing for the settlement of the claim would be taken care of by the dealer. In view of this itself, we are of the considered view that the contentions of the opposite parties viz. the 3^rd opposite party is not the insurer, the actual insurance company, the Bajaj Allianz was not impleaded, the complainant did not inform the accident directly to the Bajaj Allianz etc will not hold water. It is also pertinent to note that PWl asserted in cross-examination that in the policy certificate along with 'Bajaj Allianz' it is also named as "Maruti Insurance" as apparent by ExbtAl. Thus, on a closer scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is manifest that there is substance in the case of the complainant. Needless to say the contentions of the opposite party must fail.

           6. In the light of the facts and circumstance discussed herein above the 3^rd opposite party is directed to give Rs.69,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand only) to the first complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation. The 3^rd opposite party at liberty to pursue the remedy available in law to recover the same from the Bajaj Allianz.  The 3^rd opposite party shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of October 2008.

Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi                                                                         

Appendix:- 

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Jose Thomas (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The literature furnished by the opposite parties

Ext. A2            -          The job estimate issued by the 3^rd opposite party

Ext. A3            -          The Job Card

Ext. A4            -          The call centre claim intimation

Ext. A5            -           The letter from the insurance company

Ext. A6            -           The copy of the letter the complainant issued to the insurance company

Ext. A7            -          The letter issued to the opposite party

Ext. A8            -           The e-mail message

Ext. A9            -           The letter issued to the opposite parties

Ext. A10          -           The copy of the letter the complainant issued to the opposite parties

Ext. A11          -           E-mail messages

Ext. A12          -          E-mail messages

Ext. A13          -           The copy of the letter the complainant issued to the opposite party

Ext. A14          -           E-mail messages

Ext. A15          -          E-mail messages

Ext. A16          -           The invoice

Ext. A17          -           The print out of the SMS as to the assessment of insurance amount

Ext. A18          -          The receipt from the opposite party

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

Ext. B1             -           The warranty of the policy

Ext.B2 -           The certificate cum policy schedule     

// True Copy //

                                                                                By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-