D.O.F. 05.10.2012
D.O.O. 01.02.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2014.
C.C.No.310/2012
Theyamma
D/o. Chacko
514/2, Thekkemuri : Complainant
P.O. Manathana, Kanichar,
Thalassery
Kannur – 670677.
(Rep. by Adv. T.V. Haridasan)
1.Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
NP-54 Developed Plot
Thiruvanka Industrial Estate,
Ekkaduthangal
Guindy, Chennai.
(Rep. by Adv. Shamseer A.)
2.M/C KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd.
Hyundai Service, N.H.17, : Opposite Parties
Kannothumchal
P.O. Chovva,
Kannur – 670 006
(Rep. by Adv. P.C. Mukundan)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Adithya Tower, Opp. Civil Station,
Kannur – 2.
(Rep. by Adv. S. Mammu)
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return the excess amount collected `50,000 and compensation `50,000 with cost of this proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief are as follows : Complainant purchased a car from 2nd opposite party, the authorized dealer for self use to attend the doctor for the treatment of his ailment. The vehicle met with an accident on 11.04.2012. Vehicle was taken to 2nd opposite party by paying a sum of `5000 as touring charge on 12.04.2012. 2nd opposite party promised to repair the damage caused free of cost since the accident had taken place during warranty period. The matter was informed to 3rd opposite party insurer to indemnify damages, 2nd opposite party promised to deliver the vehicle within one month. But opposite party purposefully delayed, though repeatedly requested, the delivered vehicle only on 21.09.2012 collecting `50,000, though he had collected entire amount from 3rd opposite party. Since delayed delivery complainant was forced to hire vehicle to attend the doctor and caused loss. It is only due to the deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party.
Opposite party filed version separately on their appearance after the notice and 1st opposite party in their version. The dispute related to accident and the same intimated to 3rd opposite party. Payment was made to the dealer and all the transactions were done among complainant, opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Opposite party No.1 has no role. Any error or omission on the part of opposite party No.2 can’t be fastened upon this opposite party. Being manufacturer 1st opposite party has no role in the present dispute. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
2nd opposite party after getting report from the duly authorized Surveyor, started the work and issued the bill. The insurance company repaid the bill after deducting the amount as per the terms of insurance contract. This opposite party had deducted the amount paid by Insurance Company. As per the terms Insurance Company provide the amount basing on the report of the Surveyor. Owner is liable to pay the difference amount to the workshop. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
3rd opposite party Insurance Company in his separate version stated as follows: There is no specific allegation against Insurance Company. No deficiency in service alleged. On receiving the claims this opposite party appointed a qualified Surveyor and obtained survey report and settled the claim based on the report and paid `2,07,100 towards full and final satisfaction. Indemnity is subjected to terms and conditions. There is no basis for claiming compensation. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleading the following are taken for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, who is liable?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed for?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, A1 to A3 and Ext.B1 to B5.
Issues No.1 to 3:
Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant met with accident. The vehicle was handed over to 2nd opposite party for repair. Insurance claim settled by 3rd opposite party, Insurance Company on payment of `2,07,100.
The case of the complainant is that inspite of indemnifying the damage by 3rd opposite party Insurance Company the second opposite party collected `50,000 extra from complainant to deliver the vehicle.
There is no specific allegation against 1st and 3rd opposite party. 2nd opposite party contended that owner is liable to pay the expense over and above paid by Insurance Company as claim amount. Complainant has no right to claim warranty. His remedy is only to claim Insurance amount.
3rd opposite party Insurance Company settled the claim and paid an amount of `2,07,100 as compensation. Complainant has no complaint against 3rd opposite party. 1st opposite party is a manufacturer. The question of manufacturing defect doesn’t arise in the case in hand since it is a case that arose from accident. Complainant’s remedy is to claim Insurance Compensation. Claim already settled and the same not questioned. 1st opposite party is no way liable for any remedy as far as this case is concerned. In a way complainant has no case, in specific nature, against 1st opposite party the manufacturer and 3rd opposite party Insurance Company.
2nd opposite party has the case that complainant is liable to pay the difference amount. Ext.B3 is the letter obtained by 2nd opposite party at the time when the vehicle was entrusted for repair. Ext.B3 stated that “…. Insurance formalities Ign-ª-Xn\p tijw C¶v 04.05.2012-þ\v kÀÆokv amt\-P-cp-ambn kwkm-cn-¨-Xn\p tijw depreciation hI-bn 40 to 50 thousand Rupees Dw 3 to 4 months work sN¿m³ kabhpw thn hcp-sa¶v a\-Ên-em-b-Xn-\m workambn apt¶m«p t]mIp-hm³ Rm³ ]qÀ® k½Xw \ÂIp-¶p”. Ext.B3 makes it clear that there is a commitment on the part of complainant to meet the expense Rupees 40 to 50 thousand in the depreciation items. Ext.B1 is not challenged by complainant. PW1 stated that his case is that the Insurance Company did not allow the entire amount of repair. Complainant could not adduce evidence to the effect that he has no liability to pay the difference amount. Complainant failed to prove that 2nd opposite party has no right to demand any amount from the complainant over and above the claim amount allowed by Insurance Company if there is balance. Complainant did not adduce evidence to the effect that 2nd opposite party received more amount than that of actual expense occurred for repair. Complainant has no case that 2nd opposite party has received excess amount than that of Bill. He has not proved the total bill amount is more. If the total bill is not proved more than that is deserved it is not correct to say he is not entitled to receive the difference amount over and above the claim amount. Hence complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against 2nd opposite party. Thus issues No.1 to 3 are answered against complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of Repair order.
A2. Copy of Insurance Policy dated 15.09.2011.
A3. Copy of Cash receipt dated 21.09.2012.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Terms and conditions of warranty.
B2. Dealership agreement.
B3. Copy of letter dated 04.05.2012.
B4. Repair order.
B5 series. Credit invoice – 8 in numbers.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. Savinesh P.K.
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
