Date of filing:7.12.2013
Date of Disposal:2.7.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2014.
C.C.No.188 OF 2013
Between :
Smt K.Prameela Rani, W/o Yeswanth, Hindu, 30 years, Prop.Sri Sai Durgeswara Traders, D.No.62-2-43, Near Old Ramalayam, Patamata Lanka, Vijayawada.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Jasper Auto Services Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its General Manager, D.No.54-15-5, Ring Road, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony, Vijayawada – 8.
2. The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Manager, D.No.38-8-17, 3rd Floor, Opp.All India Radio, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 10.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 16.6.2014 in the presence of Sri P.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for complainant and Sri B.V.S.R.Prasad, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri V.V.S.Saibabu, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased a Tata Aria car from the 1st opposite party on 9.11.2012 on obtaining finance from Tata Motors Finance Limited, Mumbai. The complainant insured the said vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for a period of one year commencing from 9.11.2012 to 8.11.2013. while so on 25.11.2012 the husband of the complainant driving the insured vehicle and the same was met with an accident and damaged. The husband of the complainant informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party and handed over the damaged vehicle to the 1st opposite party for effecting repairs. The complainant submitted the estimation of damages to the 2nd opposite party and requested to settle the claim. But either of the opposite parties come forward to repair the vehicle and release the amount inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to repair the car and hand over the same to her in good running condition. The 2nd opposite party received the said notice and kept quiet, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the 1st opposite party to repair the car and hand over the same in good condition, to direct the 2nd opposite party to release the estimated damages of Rs.17,79,636/-, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each opposite party towards mental agony to the complainant and to pay costs.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant handed over her accidental damaged vehicle on 27.11.2012 for the repairs and at that time the 1st opposite party has given detailed estimation to the repairs of the said damaged car and knowing the said fact the complainant handed over the car to the 1st opposite party to get repairs. The complainant informed the 1st opposite party that she applied for insurance claim. From the date of hand over the vehicle to the 1st opposite party on 27.11.2012 the said vehicle was kept in workshop parking place which is fully secured place but not at open place. As the estimation of the said damage car is very expensive, complainant intended to get insurance claim for the repairs of accident car and apart from that with regard to customer responsibility, complainant has to bear the expenses at her own cost and this opposite party is no way concerned to get repairs of the said damaged car without getting any approval from the insurance company i.e., the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has ever ready to repair the said damaged car whenever complainant bear the expenses and this opposite party is still waiting for the approval from, insurance company i.e., the 2nd opposite party. But the complainant simply kept silent and not get approval by the insurance company i.e., the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has no right to question this opposite party to get the repairs of the said damaged car without paying even single pie to this opposite party and that even after a lapse of one year also complainant has not chosen to get repair of her car. The complainant herself is not showing any interest to get repairs of the said damaged car and even after giving reply notice dated 6.12.2013 to her notice. The complainant did not wake up and came forward to get repairs of the said damaged car. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is in brief:
The 2nd opposite party denied all the allegation of the complaint and submitted that the complainant insured her vehicle bearing No.T/R AP 16 UQ TR 3504with the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was met with an accident on 25.11.2012 and the same was informed to the opposite party and the police registered the case vide Cr.No.525/2012 under Section 337 of IPC and the husband of the complainant handed over the said car to the 1st opposite party for the necessary repairs. Immediately after receiving the claim intimation and estimations from the complainant, the 2nd opposite party had appointed a final surveyor. The final surveyor has inspected the vehicle in the premises of the 1st opposite party and directed them to undertake repairs of the said vehicle on repair basis and directed to dismantle the vehicle for undertaking repairs. Inspite of repeated demands the 1st opposite party has not dismantle the vehicle, as per the procedure of the repairer. If the 1st opposite party dismantle the vehicle the surveyor will assess the actual loss. The 2nd opposite party always ready to assess the actual loss caused to the complainant’s vehicle if the 1st opposite party dismantle the vehicle and the 2nd opposite party is ready to process the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy when the surveyor submits the final survey report to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant issued a legal notice on 16.10.2013. The 2nd opposite party gave reply dated 30.11.2013. Having acknowledge the said reply notice, the complainant has not come forward to make repairs to her vehicle. The opposite party is not liable to pay estimated amount and cause of mental agony for not completing the repair works of the car. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party towards the complainant in assessing the loss of damaged vehicle and release the amount to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. On behalf of the complainant she gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Mr.K.Murali Krishna General Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party Mr.N.Ranga Rao, Senior Divisional Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.6.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1.,Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties towards the complainant in not effecting the repairs and in not assessing the loss of damaged vehicle and releasing the amount?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
7. The complainant purchased a Tata Aria Car from the 1st opposite party on 9.11.2012 on obtaining the finance under Ex.A.1 from Tata Motors Finance Limited, Mumbai. The complainant insured the said vehicle with the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.2 for a period of one year from 9.11.2012 to 8.11.2013. On 25.11.2012 the husband of the complainant drove the insured car and met with an accident and the car was damaged. The complainant informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party and handed over the vehicle to the 1st opposite party for effecting repairs. The complainant submitted estimation of damaged car to the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.9. But opposite parties did not come forward to repair the vehicle and release the amount despite several requests made by the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice Ex.A.4 dated 16.11.2013 to the opposite parties demanding the opposite parties to repair the car and hand over the same to her in good running condition. The 2nd opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.7 but kept quiet. The 1st opposite party received Ex.A.4 notice under Ex.A.6. The 1st opposite party hand over the damaged car and gave estimation for repairs on 31.12.2012 estimation for labour charges of Rs.40,000/- under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 dated 27.11.2012 for Rs.7,00,000/- for spare parts. The complainant informed the 1st opposite party that she applied for insurance claim. The opposite parties say that from the date of hand over the vehicle to the 1st opposite party on 27.11.2012 the said vehicle was kept in workshop parking place. As the estimation of the said damaged car is very expensive the complainant intended to get insurance claim for the repairs of accident car. But with regard to customer responsibility customer has to bear the expenses at her own costs. The 1st opposite party is no way concerned to get repairs of the said damaged car without getting any approval from the insurance company i.e., the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party ever ready to repair the said damaged car whenever complainant would bear the expenses and the opposite party is still waiting for the approval from the insurance company i.e., the 2nd opposite party. But the complainant kept silent and did not get approval from the insurance company. The opposite party sent intimation letter Ex.B.2 dated 7.5.2013 stating that the 1st opposite party had intimated the complainant several times through phone and letters but they did not get any response from the complainant. The vehicle is not endorsed for repairs or if vehicle is not taken back from the 1st opposite party as per the law it will take its own course and they are not responsible for any kind of such act. The 1st opposite party also sent reply legal notice Ex.B.4 dated 6.12.2013 to the complainant stating that the complainant herself is not showing any interest to get repairs to the said damaged car or take back car from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party says that the complainant insured her vehicle with the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was met with an accident on 25.11.2012 and the same was informed to the 2nd opposite party and the police registered the case vide Crime No.525/12 under Section 337 of IPC and the complainant handed over the said car to the 1st opposite party for repairs. After receiving the claim intimation and estimations from the complainant the 2nd opposite party had appointed a final surveyor. The final surveyor has inspected the vehicle in the premises of the 1st opposite party and directed them to undertake repairs of the said vehicle on repair basis and directed to dismantle the vehicle for undertaking repairs. But there is no documentary evidence to show the above statement of the 2nd opposite party. But only if the opposite party dismantled the vehicle, the surveyor will assess the actual loss. The 2nd opposite party is always ready to assess the actual loss caused to the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party is ready to process the claim as per the conditions of the policy, when the surveyor submits the vehicle survey report to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party gave reply notice under Ex.B.5 dated 30.11.2013 and the complainant acknowledged under Ex.B.6 the same and has not come forward to get repairs to her vehicle. The 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay estimated amount.
8. In view of the above said facts we the Forum came to conclusion it is better to direct the 2nd opposite party to send written consent to the 1st opposite party to dismantle the damaged car of the complainant and after dismantling the damaged car by the 1st opposite party the 2nd opposite party has to appoint a surveyor to asesse the actual loss and to pay the assessed amount to the 1st opposite party for the said repairs. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 they are entitled to get repairs and to release the insurance amount to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the relief from the opposite parties. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the 2nd opposite party is directed to send written consent letter to the 1st opposite party to dismantle the damaged car of the complainant and after dismantling the damaged car by the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party shall appoint a surveyor to assess the actual loss amount and to pay the said amount to the 1st opposite party after getting repairs of the damaged car and the 1st opposite party is directed to deliver the car to the complainant after receiving the amount if any due from the complainant and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of July, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 K.Prameela Rani, D.W.1 K.Murali Krishna
Complainant General Manager,
(by affidavit) of the 1ST opposite party
(by affidavit)
D.W.2 M.Ranga Rao,
Senior Divisional Manager,
of the 2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 09.11.2012 Photocopy of Tax receipt along with Temporary certificate of registration.
Ex.A.2 . . Photocopy of insurance policy.
Ex.A.3 25.11.2012 Photocopy of First Information Report.
Ex.A.4 16.11.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.5 16.11.2013 Two Postal receipts.
Ex.A.6 . . Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A.8 . . C.D. along with seven photographs.
Ex.A.9 05.12.2012 Photocopy of estimation issued by the 1st opposite party.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 12.05.2012 Job Card – Workshop Copy.
Ex.B.2 27.11.2012 Job Slip.
Ex.B.3 07.05.2013 Letter from the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B.4 06.12.2013 Reply notice.
Ex.B.5 30.11.2013 Reply notice from the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B.6 . . Postal acknowledgement.
PRESIDENT
