Complaint filed on: 25.05.2016
Complaint Disposed on:08.12.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.60/2016
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
B.S.Mohammed,
S/o Soofi Beary,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o Tinker Babu Garage Road,
Nehru Nagar, Chikmagalur Town.
(By Sri/Smt. S.H.Mahesh Kumar., Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
1. IFFCO Tokyo General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
4th & 5th floor, IFFCO Tower,
Plot No-3, Sector No-29,
Gurgaeon-122001.
2. M/s Shruthi Motors,
Rep. by its authorized
Signatory, Shankar Matt
Road, Shimogga.
(Op 1 -By Sri.T.R.Harish, advocate)
(Op 2 -By Sri.B.R.Jagadeesh, advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Op 1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service in not paying the claim amount of Rs.1,63,508/- towards damage of the vehicle. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 and 2 to pay the said amount along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-TR-8282 which was purchased from Op 2 and at the time of purchasing the vehicle was insured by Op 2 with Op 1 insurance company vide policy No.8871927. Such being the case, on 26.04.2015 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident due to some untimely intervention in the road, which caused damages to the vehicle. The said accident was immediately reported to the Op 1 and 2 and Op 2 had advised the complainant to lift the vehicle from the spot to his service station. Accordingly, the complainant by towing the same dropped the vehicle to the showroom of the Op 2, where the damages was estimated and assessed the cost of repairs to the tune of Rs.1,48,187.49/-. After making estimation the surveyor of Op 1 also surveyed the vehicle and later on the vehicle was taken for repair under the job card dated 12.05.2015. Subsequently, the vehicle was repaired and it was intimated to the complainant that the complainant has to pay the entire cost incurred towards repairs, later on the same amount will be reimbursed by Op 1. Accordingly, complainant had paid entire amount of Rs.1,43,008/- plus 7,500/- being DPAMT and also paid Rs.13,000/- towards towing of the vehicle. Keeping on a hope that Op 2 will make necessary correspondence and estimation to reimburse the said amount.
Inspite of entire payment towards repair of the vehicle by complainant, the claim made by complainant was not settled by Op 1 and 2. Ops have not made any attempt to pay the entire amount paid by complainant towards the vehicle. As such he issued a legal notice on 11.08.2015 and called upon them to settle the claim, even inspite of receipt of the legal notice Op 2 had given an untenable reply, but Op 1 neither settled nor replied the legal notice. Hence, Op 1 and 2 rendered deficiency in service in not settling the entire claim of the complainant. Therefore, complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service in not settling the entire claim of the complainant and prays for direction against Op 1 and 2 to settle the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
4. Op 1 in his version has contended that, this Op has issued a policy to the vehicle Maruti Swift desire car bearing registration No.KA-18/TR-8282 vide policy No.88761927 and the liability of this Op subject to terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the policy.
Op 1 further contended that, according to complainant the accident took place on 27.04.2015, but the said fact was intimated to this Op on 06.05.2015 that is after gap of 9 days. This Op was deprived an opportunity to inspect the vehicle on the spot, there is a delay in intimating the accident to this Op. Thereby complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
Inspite of violation of the conditions in order to avoid the hardship to the complainant this Op admitted the claim immediately after receipt of the intimation from insured on 06.05.2015 and one Mr.C.Pruthvi, IRDA approved surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. At that time claim insured submitted the estimation No.ES15000087 dated 06.05.2015 M/s Shruthi Motors, Shimogga for Rs.78,827.75/- towards accidental damage. The said surveyor after inspection had quantified the loss caused to the vehicle at Rs.19,669/- and submitted to this Op. Based on the survey assessment this Op had extended cashless facility to the insured and agreed to pay the amount directly to the repairer M/s Shruthi Motors (Op 2). Thereafter the said Op 2 had submitted the repair invoice bearing No.BR15001133 dated 08.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.28,041/- for settlement. Out of the said bill this Op considered gross amount of Rs.27,027/- and settled the net amount of Rs.19,669/- to said Op 2 as per the survey assessment as hereunder:
A) Gross amount Rs.27,027/-
B) Less Depreciation Rs. 6,058/-
C) Less salvage Rs. 300/-
D) Policy excess Rs. 1,000/-
Total amount paid Rs.19,669/-
After receipt of the said amount they obtained full satisfaction voucher from both complainant and Op 2 to the said amount. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Further the complainant is estopped from making any further claim after full satisfaction.
Op 1 further contended that, the complainant for claiming an insurance compensation for the loss happened and submitted an estimation No.ES15000250 dated 12.06.2015, which came into existence after 47 days from the date of accident. The said estimate was either produced by Op or before the surveyor, who assessed the loss. Moreover, the parts claimed in the estimate are not related to the loss suffered due to accident. Hence, they are not liable to pay any claim made by complainant and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op 2 in his version has contended that, they have delivered the new vehicle Maruti Swift Desire to the complainant in the month of February 2015 and insured with Op 1 company. But they do not know that the accident took place on 26.04.2015 and suffered damages. Anyhow the complainant got repaired the vehicle from this Op and paid the repair charges. But it is false to state that they never made any attempt to claim from insurance company that is Op 1. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in repairing the vehicle. The notice issued by complainant was suitably replied. Hence, they are not liable to pay any claim made by complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked Policy issued by Op 1 as Ex.P.1, Endorsement Certificate with respect to the insurance policy as Ex.P.2, Service estimate dated 12.06.2015 issued by Op 2 for Rs.1,48,181/- as Ex.P.3, Tax invoice issued by Op 2 dated 22.06.2015 as Ex.P.4, Another pre-invoice(service) dated 22.06.2015 as Ex.P.5, ‘B’ register extract to show the complainant is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-P-5747 as Ex.P.6, Office copy of the legal notice as Ex.P.7, Reply issued by Op 2 as Ex.P.8 in support of their claim. Op 1 and 2 also filed affidavit and marked job card retail invoice issued by Op 2 as Ex.R.1, Service estimate as Ex.R.2, Motor Claim Form as Ex.R.3, Motor Final Survey Report as Ex.R.4 and Satisfaction voucher as Ex.R.5 in support of their defense.
7. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is a Deficiency in Service on the part of Ops?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
9. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op 1 and 2, there is no dispute that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-P-5747 was insured with Op 1 through Op 2. It is also admitted that on 26.04.2015 the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident, due to which it suffered damages. Op 1 also admits that, the vehicle was repaired by Op 2 and after the accident they have appointed one IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle. Accordingly, the said surveyor was assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,667/- and as per the assessment they have settled the claim towards full and final settlement and submits no deficiency in service.
10. On going through documents produced by both complainant and Op 2 we observed that, Op 2 had issued two estimations, one for Rs.28,041/- and another estimation for Rs.78,827/- as per Ex.R.4, at the time of inspection from the IRDA approved surveyor, the said surveyor has assessed the loss basing on the job card repair invoice dated 08.06.2015, which amounting to Rs.28,041/- only and he has ignored the service estimate for Rs.78,827/-, even on observation of the final survey report marked as Ex.R.4 we noticed that, the said surveyor has not taken into consideration of the job card dated 06.05.2015 for Rs.78,827/-, ignoring the repairs made under the said job card the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.19,669/- only by considering one service estimate for Rs.28,041/-. The Op 1 being the insurance company had not verified the survey report properly and even they have not scrutinized the invoice issued by Op 2 for an amount of Rs.78,827/-. Hence, we found a deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 in not considering the entire repairs made by Op 2. Of course, we agree that another estimate for Rs.1,48,187/- which was generated subsequent to the said estimate is not payable by Op 1, the complainant has not explained what all the damages caused to the vehicle at the time of accident. Anyhow, Op 2 being the service provider has given two estimates for Rs.28,041/- dated 08.06.2015 and for Rs.78,827/- dated 06.05.2015 which are related to the damages caused in the accident. Hence, Op 1 being the insurer is liable to consider the another estimate dated 06.05.2015 and also liable to pay the eligible expenses to the complainant.
11. The complaint against Op 2 is liable to be dismissed as we found there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op 2, they have repaired the vehicle of the complainant and received the amount from complainant. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed against Op 2.
12. Further we are of the opinion that the Op 1 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service in not considering the repair estimate dated:06.05.2015 for Rs.78,827/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above Point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- Op 1 is directed to settle the eligible amount by considering the estimation for Rs.78,827/- (Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Twenty Seven) dated 06.05.2015 along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand Rupees) for deficiency in service and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- The complaint against Op 2 is dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 8th day of December 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Insurance policy.
Ex.P.2 - Endorsement Certificate.
Ex. P.3 - Copy of Service estimate.
Ex. P.4 - 5 cash receipts.
Ex. P.5 - Pre-invoice (Service).
Ex.P.6 - ‘B’ Register extract.
Ex.P.7 - Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.8 - Reply notice.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Job card retail invoice.
Ex.R.2 - Service estimate.
Ex.R.3 - Copy of claim form.
Ex.R.4 - Copy of Final Survey Report.
Ex.R.5 - Copy of Satisfaction Voucher.
Dated:30.11.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
