IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of October, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 47/2020 (Filed on 06-03-2020)
Petitioner : Joy E.C.
Kazhunnadiyil House,
Ayarkunnam P.O.
Kottayam – 686 564.
(Adv. P.K. Chithrabhanu)
Vs.
Opposite partied : (1) Manager,
Jubily Hero & Auto Mobiles,
Nagampadom, Kottayam
(Adv. Shiby Alex)
Additional opposite party : United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(impleaded as per IA 11/21) Kottayam Branch,
Rep. by Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Pulimood Junction,
Kottayam
(Adv. P.G. Girija)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act1986.
The brief of the complaint is as follows. The complainant had purchased a
Maestro scooter from the opposite party and registered with Reg. no. KL.05.AM.7609. The scooter was involved in an accident on 08.12.2018 and was entrusted to the first opposite party for the repair works. The first opposite party promised to give the vehicle within one month. But they failed to complete the repair works as promised. As directed by the opposite party a request was given before RTO for getting sanction for replacing the chassis of the scooter. The hypotification was closed and the records were given to the opposite party. Rs.10000/- was paid to the opposite party as per their request. The opposite party
had not completed the repair works and handed over the vehicle. The complainant being a music teacher is not able to carry out the music classes due to the nonavailability of the vehicle. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in their service. Hence this complaint is filed.
The copy of the complaint was duly served to the first opposite party.
The 1st opposite party appeared and filed the version. As per the version of the 1st opposite party the vehicle was entrusted for repair works only on 18.12.2018. The complainant requested for a replacement of the vehicle by treating the vehicle as total loss, and promised to come with a survey report of the Insurance Company to that effect. After a few days the complainant and a surveyor came and inspected the vehicle, but the report or approval was not given. The complainant was intimated that for changing the chassis of the vehicle permission from RTO is required. On 16/07/2019 the complainant had given the approval from RTO and paid Rs.10,000/- as advance. The approval from the insurance company is also required for doing the repair works. The Insurance Company had not given the approval. Since the complainant had given an advance, the chassis was brought and had completed the repair works of the vehicle. This was intimated to the complainant.
The repaired vehicle has to be inspected by the surveyor of the Insurance
Company and to certify the fitness. An application has to be submitted before RTO along with the report of surveyor and RC Book for entering the chassis number. Then only the vehicle can be delivered to the complainant. The complainant had not taken any steps for completing this procedure. There is no negligence on the part of this opposite party in doing the repair works of the
vehicle.
The complainant filed IA 11/21 for impleading the Insurance Company as second opposite party and second opposite party was impleaded in the case.
The additional second opposite party appeared and filed their version. The
version of the 2nd opposite party is that the accident was on -8.12.2018 and the
survey was conducted on 28.12.2018 and the complainant was permitted to repair the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant had not submitted the final bill and details of NEFT for settling the claim. A letter was issued on 12.03.2020 to the complainant seeking the submission of final bill and NEFT details. But no replay
was received from the complainant, and this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A8. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibit B1 and the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked exhibit B2 to B5.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point 1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record it is clear that the scooter of the complainant with Reg No.KL.05.AM.7609 met with an accident on 8.12.2018. The scooter was entrusted to the first opposite party for doing the repair works on 18.12.2018. The vehicle was having valid Insurance certificate at the time of accident. The approved surveyor of the second opposite party conducted the survey on 28.12.2018 .The complainant paid an advance Rs10,000/- on 16/07/2019. Permission from RTO for changing the chassis had obtained by complainant and
had given to first opposite party.
Ext A1 is the Copy of RC Book of KL.05.AM.7609 Scooter. With chassis No.MBLJF32ADGGA05210. ExtA2 is the copy of Insurance policy of the scooter KL.05.AM.7609 with policy No.1005053117P117749061 for the period from 16.03.2018 to 15.03.2019, issued by the second opposite party.
Ext A5 is the Sanction order obtained from RTO Kottayam for the replacement of Chassis of the vehicle KL.05.AM.7609.
Ext A6 is the Receipt issued by the first opposite party for Rs.10, 000/- as advance
paid on 16.07.2019.
Ext A8 is the Notice nil dated from first opposite party intimating the complainant
that the vehicle bearing Reg No.KL05 AM 7609 can be collected after remitting
the Insurance bill amount of Rs35,939/-.
Ext B1 is the Copy of the letter dated 12.03.2020 issued to the complainant by the second opposite party requesting to submit the final bill and NEFT details
within 10 days for settling the claim of the vehicle KL.05.AM.7609.
Ext B2 is the Job card dated 18.12.2018 created by the first opposite party for the
vehicle KL.5 AM 7609, with estimated repair value Rs.25000/- and promised delivery time 24/12/2018.
Ext.B3 is the detailed estimate for the vehicle KL5AM7609 taken by first opposite party on 20.12.2018 for a total amount of Rs.37207.52/- including GST.
B4 is the Letter dated 20.07.2020 issued to the complainant by the first opposite
party intimating that the vehicle can be collected on payment of Rs.35939/-.
From the above discussed evidence it is evident that the first opposite party accepted the vehicle for repair works and prepared the ExtB2 Job card on 18.12.2018.AS per Ext B2 Job card the promised date of delivery of the vehicle
was 24/12/2018 and the estimated repair value was Rs.25000/-.A detailed estimate for an amount of Rs.37207.52/-vide Ext B3 was taken on 20.12.2019.
It is clear that the first opposite party failed to complete the repair works before
24.12.2018 as promised in Ext B2.
Complainant had obtained the Ext A5 permission from RTO for changing the
chassis and was given to the first opposite party.
The complainant also paid Rs.10,000/- as advance on 16/07/2019.
The repair work of the vehicle was not completed till 06.03.20, the date of filing of this case. The first opposite party issued the Ext B4 letter to the complainant only on 20.07.2020.
This proves that there is inordinate delay on the part of the first opposite party in completing the repair work of the vehicle as promised. This had caused much sufferings, inconveniences and financial loss to the complainant. Moreover Due to this act of the first opposite party the complainant was not able to produce the final bill before the second opposite party in time. This act on the part of the first opposite party is deficiency in service as defined in Consumer protection Act1986. Point No 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The first opposite party is directed to deliver the repaired vehicle KL.05.AN.7609 by accepting the balance on the repair cost i.e. Rs.25939/- and to issue the final bill to the complainant.
- The first opposite party is directed to give RS.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and sufferings to the complainant with cost Rs.2000/-
- The second opposite party is directed to accept the final bill from the
complainant and settle the claim as per norms within 30 days from the date receipt of the final bill.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If not complied as ordered the amounts in compensation and cost will carry 9% interest per annum till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC book (KL-05-AM-7609)
A2 – Insurance policy certificate (No.1005053117P117749061)
A3 – Copy of FIR dtd.11-12-18 by Manarkad Police Station(subject to proof)
A4- Copy of certificate by Gitto George (Workshop Manager)
A5- Proceedings of Joint RTO
A6 – Copy of cash receipt voucher issued by 1st opposite party
A7 - Insurance policy certificate (No.1005053118P116367867)
A8 – Copy of notice issued by 1st opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of letter dtd.12-03-2020 by 2nd opposite party
B2- Job card
B3 – Estimate dtd.20-12-2018
B4 –Postal receipt
B5 – Tax invoice issued by 1st opposite party
By Order
SD/-
Assistant Registrar
