By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. Complainant purchased an Innnova Car for his own use and same was registered as KL-50-E-0101. At the time of delivering the vehicle , the Toyota dealer arranged the insurance coverage and they provided the records. Opposite party No.1 officials seen present in the show room and promised that the insurance will be bumper to bumper and they will spent for all repairs. Believing the promises, complainant agreed for the same. The vehicle was insured with opposite party No.1 vide policy No. TIL/10684420, proposal No. P11038984 dated 27/09/2020 and the period of insurance was from 27/09/2020 to 26/09/2021. The policy was issued to cover bumper to bumper expense and it covers entire expenses and opposite party collected huge amount as premium from the complainant.
2. The above said vehicle got damaged in riot on 28/03/2021 within the limit of Mankada Police Station and police registered a crime as per Crime No.66/2021. The cause of action was on 27/03/2021 at about 19 hours at Aripra. The workers of Senapathy Bus and their gundas attacked the complainant and damaged the vehicle by hitting the same with bus. The gundas put sand in the engine of the car and thereby the vehicle was damaged. The vehicle was produced before opposite party No.2 and they repaired the vehicle. The insurance company promised the complainant that they will pay all expenses to repair the vehicle. Complainant submitted all records before the opposite party No.1. Total repair cost was Rs. 2,69,971/- at first and later it was informed that the total cost will be Rs.3,25,684/-. In fact the details of the work done and the detailed bills are not provided to complainant. Opposite party No.1 and the service centre is having subtle relationship and the details of the repair are not provided to the complainant.
3. At the time of delivering the vehicle from the service centre, VPK Motorsdemanded Rs. 83,287/- to deliver the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 was contacted and its officials stated that they paid the amount covered by the insurance and the balance should be paid by the complainant. Complainant was shocked to hear. The insurance coverage was bumper to bumper and no amount is payable as per the issued policy and huge amount is collected as premium for the same.
4. Complainant paid Rs. 83,287/- to get the vehicle from the service centre and it is informed that the balance amount is paid by the opposite party No.1 directly to the service centre and they are having tie-up for the same. Complainant took delivery of the vehicle and as directed by the opposite party No.1 petition was filed to consider the claim again. Opposite party No.1 stated that they will consider the claim as no standard claim and they will sanctioned 90% of the bill for the sake of settlement and the same was agreed. But the same was not het considered and still no reply is received for each enquiries.
5. As per the insurance policy conditions the entire amount should be paid and the service will be cashless. But the complainant was forced to arrange huge amount during pandemic seasons. The opposite parties committed gross deficiency in service and the complainant had lost Rs.83,287/- and months to get to the vehicle repaired back. Complainant contacted opposite party No.1 to get the details of the entire bill. It was not given and the service centre personal stated that they will not give the actual bill.
6. Complainant lost Rs. 83287/- and he was put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship in the matter. He is not having any other remedy except to approach the Commission. Hence this complaint.
7. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get a full refund of Rs. 83,287/- with 12% interest from 28/02/2021, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party No.1 and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version. On 20/07/2022 complainant filed one IA 538/22 to implead the Managing Director M/s VPK Motors, Ramapuram, Managing Director M/s VPK Motors, Palakkad as opposite party No.2 and 3. Petition allowed and sent notice to opposite party No.2 and 3. After notice received, they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
9. In their version, opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. Opposite party No.1 admits that they issued an insurance cover to the complainant for his vehicle No. KL-50-E-0101. They stated that insurance policy is a contract and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the contract and the contract of insurance are approved by IRDAI.
10. The damage to the vehicle were repaired at VPK Motors Private Limited. A surveyor was deputed by them and the cost of repair was assessed and the M/s VPK Motors Private Limited was authorised to carry out the repairs and submit their bill. After repairs the surveyor had again inspected the vehicle and found that repairs had been carried out satisfactorily. M/s VPK Motors Private Limited submitted a bill dated 24/11/2021 to the opposite party for Rs. 2,94,550/-. This bill was settled by them on 26/11/2021 by transferring an amount of Rs. 2,88,310/- by NFET to the bank account of M/s VPK private Limited. Complainant has not informed the opposite party about any other bill raised by M/s VPK Motors Private limited for the same damage and VPK Motor's has not submitted any other bill to them also. They denied any correspondence with the complainant regarding any further bill. They again stated that complainant had not produced any documents to substantiate his claims. They again stated that they settled the bill raised by M/s VPK Motors within 3 days of its presentation. There is no deficiency in service from their side. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
11. In their version, opposite party No.2 and 3 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them except those which are admitted there under. They admitted that complainant had purchased an Innova Car and it was registered as KL -50-E-0101. But the insurance was selected and arranged by complainant himself from the online portal of opposite parties. They also admitted the contention of complainant regarding the accident happened on 21/03/2021 and Mankada Police registered a case. Opposite party No.2 and 3 stated that even if there is bumper to bumper insurance, some selected parts have not get the insurance protection. At first the surveyor of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and 3 had inspected the vehicle of complainant and informed him that the repairing cost of the vehicle was Rs. 2,69,971/-. But after detailed inspection it is found that at the time of riot, the attackers put mud inside the engine of the vehicle. There is nothing mentioned by the Mankada Police regarding the mud which was put by the attackers inside the engine of the vehicle. At the time of seeing the mud inside the engine of the vehicle by the surveyor and opposite party No.2 and 3 , they suddenly informed these things to complainant and they also informed him that complainant will not get insurance coverage for the amount spent for removing the mud from the engine of the vehicle. They also stated that they started their work after getting the permission from complainant.
12. Hence the repairing cost increased from Rs. 2,69,971/- to 3,25,684/-. The additional amount of Rs. 83,287- charged for the additional work and the labour charge and tax and complainant paid the amount also. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2 and 3. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
13. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced one document which is marked as Ext. A1. Ext.A1 series are the copies of receipt and tax invoice given by opposite party No.2 to complainant on 26/11/2021. Thereafter opposite parties also filed their affidavit and documents from the side of opposite party No.2 and 3 are marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is the copy of Estimate given by Toyota to complainant. Ext. B2 is the copy of tax invoice for repairing the complainant’s vehicle and regarding the approved parts for repair allowed by the insurance company dated 24/11/2021. Ext. B3 are the copies of receipts given by Amana Toyota to complainant dated 24/11/2021 and the copy of non-approved parts of complainant’s vehicle from the insurance company for repairing the vehicle. Thereafter the documents from the side of opposite party No.1 are marked as Ext. B4 to B6. Ext. B4 is the copy of survey report. Ext. B5 is the copy of invoice raised by opposite party No.2 and 3. Ext. B6 is the copy of details of payment made to VPK Motors by opposite party No.1.
14. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- If so, reliefs and cost?
15.Point No.1 and 2:-
Case of the complainant is that at the time of delivery of the vehicle after repair, complainant was asked to pay an extra amount of Rs 83,287/- by opposite party No.2 and 3. He again stated that the vehicle had a bumper to bumper insurance policy at that time. But the complainant has produced only one document before the Commission which proves that complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.83,287/- which demanded by opposite party No.2 and 3.While scrutinising the complaint and affidavit , we are on the opinion that no attempt was made by the complainant in the said complaint or affidavit to explain about the document he produced especially the second page of Ext. A1 series document. The date mentioned in Ext. A1 series receipt and invoice are 26/11/2021. From the complaint and affidavit of complainant the date of accident mentioned is 28/03/2021. Opposite parties also admitted the date of accident as 28/03/2021. Opposite party No.1 stated that complainant has not informed them about any other bill raised by opposite party No.2 and 3 for the same damage. Complainant has no case that he sent the additional bill to opposite party No.1 or he demanded to opposite party No.1 for getting that amount. There is no document to show the same. They stated that they settled the bill submitted by opposite party No.2 and 3. They again stated that at the time of damaged vehicle was inspected, no damage to the engine was noticed.
16. Surveyor of opposite party No.1 filed their report on 07/05/2021, within 1 ½ months after accident. Nothing mentioned about the engine damage by surveyor in his report. From the version of all the opposite parties, it is clear that opposite party No.1 already paid the insurance amount for the damage caused to the vehicle to opposite party No.2 and 3. They stated that, they had settled that bill within 3 days. Complainant also admitted the same. From the complaint and affidavit of complainant, we are on the opinion that complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service of opposite party No.1. Complainant can produce the FIR to verify his contentions. FIR has not been produced before the Commission to verify whether the said FIR mentioned the matter of soil or mud inside the engine of the vehicle or not. Opposite party No.2 and 3 stated in their version and affidavit that there is nothing mentioned in the FIR about the mud inside the engine. They also not submitted the FIR before the Commission. It is the duty of complainant to produce the FIR before the Commission to prove his case. Opposite party No.2 and 3 stated that the mud inside the engine was noticed by them later. Complainant failed to prove that the mud found inside the engine of the vehicle was happened during the riot on 28/03/2021. Surveyor also not found the mud inside the vehicle. After detailed inspection opposite party No.2 and 3 found the mud inside the vehicle and they informed to the complainant. Sometimes it happened due to another reason, not related to the riot. Otherwise it is the responsibility of the complainant to prove that the mud found inside the engine of the vehicle was caused during the riot. If complainant produced the FIR before the Commission it is easy for us to verify whether the case of mud was mentioned in the FIR or not. From the complaint, affidavit and versions, we are on the opinion that opposite party No.1 paid the insurance amount to other opposite parties. The issue of mud came later and it had nothing to do with the incident happened on 28/03/2021. Complainant failed to prove his contention regarding the gundas put sand inside the engine of the car and thereby the vehicle was damaged. Complainant also failed to prove the deficiency of service of all the opposite parties .Hence complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Series are the copies of receipt and tax invoice given by opposite party No.2
to complainant on 26/11/2021.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B6
Ext. B1 : Copy of Estimate given by Toyota to complainant.
Ext. B2 : Copy of tax invoice for repairing the complainant’s vehicle and regarding
the approved parts for repair allowed by the insurance company dated
24/11/2021.
Ext. B3 : Copies of receipts given by Amana Toyota to complainant dated
24/11/2021
Ext. B4 : Copy of survey report.
Ext. B5 : Copy of invoice raised by opposite party No.2 and 3.
Ext. B6 : Copy of details of payment made to VPK Motors by opposite party No.1.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
