IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 30^th day of November,  2022.

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 247/2017 (Filed on 08-11-2017)

Petitioner                                  :         Bibin Skariah K.

S/o. Scariah,

Pooppada Puthenpurayil House,

Manarcad P.O. Kottayam.

(Adv. Rayin K.R.)

Vs.

Opposite party                          : (1)    Manager,

                                                          Honda Assure SMC Insurance

                                                          Brokers Pvt Ltd.

                                                          Parsavanth Metro Mall,

                                                          Prathap nagar metro station,

                                                          Prathap nagar,  New Delhi – 110001

   (2)  Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office X

Flat No. 101-16, 1^st floor N-1,

BMC House,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001.

(Adv. M.P. Thankam)

                                                   (3)  Manager,

                                                          Peninsular Honda,

                                                          Patel Cars Pvt. ltd.

                                                          NH 47, Vytilla Road,

                                                          Bypass Maradu P.O. Cochin

                                                          (Adv. Jolly John)

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Crux of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant bought a Honda BRV 1.5 CVT on 20-12-2016 from the third opposite party and availed the second opposite party’s insurance policy vide policy no. 39010331166100015958 through their agent, first opposite party.                    The said policy was valid from 20-12-2016 to 19-12-2017 and was private car package policy which covers the vehicle and third party risks. The gross premium paid was Rs.41,605/-. The said car met with an accident on 26-3-2017 at Thellakam Kottayam, where it hit on an electric post. Kerala State Electricity Board claimed a loss of Rs.24,796/-. For releasing the vehicle complainant paid the said amount. The complainant along with the copy of the R/C book, insurance certificate, Report and GD entry of Ettumanoor police station, certificate issued by KSEB, copies of receipts issued by the KSEB lodged a claim as required by honda assure with the insurance company. But the opposite parties made the petitioner run from pillar to post for reimbursing the said amount, they malafidely protracted the requisites and put the complainant in turmoil and till the date of filing this complaint evasively denied the right to the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties are improper and decisive. It is averred in the complaint that the conduct of the opposite parties are wayward and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have no authority to delay the insurance payment to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite patties to pay Rs.24796 along with a compensation of rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused to the complainant.

Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the commission.

Second and third opposite parties filed separate version.

Though the first opposite party appeared before the commission but failed to file version. Hence the first opposite party was set ex-party.

Version of the second opposite party is as follows:

No such accident took place on 26-3-2017 to vehicle no. KL 5AP 4003 as alleged in the complaint. NO FIR was registered on 26-3-2017 with regard to the alleged accident. The complainant has not produced any claim form or documents or vehicular particulars to substantiate the claim put forwarded by him.                             The petitioner has not intimated the alleged accident, if any to the second opposite party. The complainant is raising some false and frivolous allegations only for the purpose of illegal gain from the second opposite party .Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the amount as prayed for that was allegedly paid

by the driver of the complainant to KSEB. The second opposite party is not liable to reimburse any amount to the complainant.  There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

Third opposite party filed version contenting as follows:

The complainant bought a Honda BRV 1.5 CVT from the third opposite party and had taken insurance coverage with the second opposite party through the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the dealer of the Honda cars and provides repair and maintenance service for Honda cars as an approved dealer. The parent company Honda has customized insurance service for their customers under the name” Honda Assure Policy for which dealers like this opposite party, has an obligation to process the insurance settlement and to commence the accident repairs on cashless basis subject to the terms and conditions of such policy. The third opposite party was not aware of the repair and claim settlement process as a result of the accident mentioned in the complaint. On enquiry it came to the knowledge of the thirds opposite party that the complainant had entrusted KL 5AP 4003 vehicle after the accident to the Premier Honda, Thellakom P.O. Adichira Kottayam to carry out accident repair work on 26-3-2017. The repair work was completed and Premier Honda processed the claim for repair works and forwarded it to the second opposite party on 28-3-2017. Based on the repair work done the claim amount forwarded to the second opposite party amounted to Rs.1,55,704/-. After processing the claim, on 9-5-2017 an amount of Rs.1,52,204/- was settled by the second opposite party with Premier Honda. As per the information received the only claim processed and forwarded by the Premium Honda was claim for the repair work done to the car as a result of the accident. Complainant never contacted the third opposite party regarding claim amount of Rs.24,796/-, the amount KSEB claimed for loss as result of the complainant’s car hit electric post. The responsibility of claim settlement in relation to the repair works done by Premier Honda, is not with the third opposite party and the third opposite party has not engaged in any activities relating to claim settlement nor has taken any amount from the complainant towards service charges for the claim processing directly or indirectly. Thus, there is no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and the third opposite party as far as repair or insurance claim settlement is concerned.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and exhibit A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the complainant. Aneesh Jose who is the Deputy Manager of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit B1 to B3.

On evaluation of complaint version and evidence of record we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs?

Point number 1 and 2 together.

The complainant bought a Honda BRV 1.5 CVT bearing registration no. KL 5AP 4003 from the third opposite party and had taken insurance coverage with the second opposite party through the first opposite party. Exhibit A1 is the registration certificate of the said vehicle. Exhibit A2 insurance certificate proves that the said vehicle have insurance coverage for a sum assured of Rs.11,67,408 and the policy was valid for the period from 20-12-2016 to 19-12-2017. On perusal of Exhibit A2 we can see that the said policy was a private car package policy.

Exhibit A3 is the report dated 27-3-2017 issued by the Sub inspector of Police Ettumanoor police station. It is proved by Exhibit A3 that the complainant had lodged a petition before the police authorities stating that said vehicle had colluded to Electric post on 26-3-2017 at Thellakam, Kottayam and the vehicle had sustained damages The fact that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.24,796/-  to the Kerala State Electricity Board by way of 3rd party damage can  be seen from Exts.A5 and A6 documents. The aforesaid documents would make it abundantly clear that the KSEB demanded a sum of Rs.24,796/- from the complainant for causing damage to the electric post and that the complainant paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.24,796/-. Those documents would also establish the fact that the damage was caused to the electric post on account of hitting of the insured car against that electric post. So, the claim for Rs.24,796- can be treated as sustainable one.

Second opposite party contended that the complainant has not produced any claim form or documents or vehicular particulars to substantiate the claim put forwarded by him. Claim intimation form and claim form submitted by the complainant is marked as exhibit B1. On perusal of exhibit B1 it can be see that it is stated as” colluded with electric post and caused damage on front side. Exhibit b3 is the satisfaction certificate issued by the complainant to the second opposite party regarding the discharge of Rs.1,52,204/-. Thus we cannot accept the contention that complainant has not intimated the alleged accident to the second opposite party.

The damage caused to the properties of 3rd parties are also covered by the policy of insurance. The insurance company being the insurer was bound to indemnify the complainant as insured against the damage caused to the property of 3rd party. If that be so, the insurance company was legally bound to honour the claim made by complainant as insured with respect to the Honda  BRV KL 5AP 4003. The failure to honour the said claim would amount to deficiency of service.      

It is submitted by the third opposite party in version that the only claim processed and forwarded by the Premium Honda where the vehicle was entrusted to carry out the repair work, was claim for the repair work done to the car as a result of the accident. The complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove that the third opposite party has engaged in any activities relating to claim settlement and has taken any amount from the complainant towards service charges for the claim processing directly or indirectly.

On a thoughtful evaluation of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party and failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the other opposite parties. No doubt, the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the deficient act of the second opposite party for which the second opposite party is liable to compensate.

In the result the complaint is allowed partly as follows:

1. We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.24,796/- to the complainant with 9% from 27-3-2017 ie the date on which the complainant had paid the amount to the KSEB.
2. We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the second opposite party.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.

If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of November, 2022

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                  Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 -  Copy of RC book (KL-05-AP-4003)

A2 – Copy of policy No.39010331166100015958

A3 – Copy of reportdtd.27-03-2017 by Sub Inspector of police, Ettumanoor

A4 – Printout of application

A5 – Copy of certificate dtd.27-03-2017

A6 series – Copies of receipts  (3nos.)

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of claim information form

B2 – Copy of report dtd.27-03-17 by Sub Inspector of police, Ettumanoor

B3 – Satisfaction Report

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                             Assistant Registrar