DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2024.
Present : Sri Vinay Menon .V, President.
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member.
: Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
Date of filing:26.05.2023
CC/139/2023
Rahamathulla, - Complainant
S/o Razak Rowther,
Ambalavatta House,
Thorapuram, Kolasherikunnu,
Manaladi, Mannarkkad P.O,
Palakkad-678 582.
(By Adv.Rohit Baben & Sreeraj.R)
Vs
1 K.K.Agencies, -Opposite Parties
Represented by its owner and proprietor,
Aarani, Kavalappara P.O,
Shornur, Palakkad-678 582.
2 The Manager, K.K. Agency,
Arani, Kavalappara.(P.O),
Shornur, Palakkad-679 523.
(Both OPs ex-parte)
ORDER
By Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant’s auto taxi bearing registration No.KL/50/J/4070 met with an accident on 21.06.2022 causing severe and extensive damage to the vehicle. As the vehicle was insured with M/s. United India Insurance Co., the complainant informed the insurance company about the incident and as advised by them, he obtained a quotation for Rs.53,666/- from the opposite party for repairing the vehicle and make it roadworthy. The insurance surveyor attached to the insurance company assessed the total amount required for repair as Rs.45,303/-.
The opposite party after completing the work raised a bill for Rs.65,006/- which was much above the quoted rate of Rs.53,666/-. The complainant paid Rs.58,000/- after bargaining with the opposite party. After taking delivery of the vehicle after repair, it was found that the repair was not proper and the charges collected for many items were exorbitant. The complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party pointing out the defects and deficiency in service, the opposite party did not acknowledge or respond.
Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached this Commission seeking refund of R.58,000/- paid for repair along with interest @ 6.5% p.a. apart from a compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- for loss of income, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance; but filed version after the statutory period. Hence, the version was rejected and the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A11 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Ext.A2 is the invoice dated 18.07.2022 for Rs.53,666/-, Ext.A3 is the copy of survey report submitted by the insurance surveyor dated 18.10.2022, Ext.A4 is the copy of invoice dated 25.08.2022 showing the total amount payable as Rs.58,000/-, Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the opposite party dated 14.11.2022, Ext.A7(series) is series of photographs and CD showing the vehicle with damages, Ext.A8 is the copy of the letter written by the complainant to the opposite party, Ext.A9 is the acknowledgement for the letter signed by the opposite party, Ext.A10 is the postal receipt for the above letter and Ext.A11 is the track consignment report of the said registered letter.
4. The main issues raised by the complainant are the defects of the vehicle after repair and the exorbitant rates charged for the repair by the opposite party. Comparison of Ext.A2 and Ext.A5 reveal that the amount finally charged by the opposite party is Rs.58,000/- against the rate quoted Rs.53,666/- which cannot be termed as “exorbitant”. As the insurance company having assessed the estimate for repair as Rs.45,303/- (Ext.A3), the complainant is eligible for reimbursement of the same from the insurance company. Whether the insurance claim has been settled or not has not been mentioned anywhere in the complaint. In this context, it is relevant to note that the copy of invoice for Rs.65,006/- (Ext.A4) dated 20.06.2022 contains the official seal of the Insurance Co. which shows that the original invoice has been submitted to the company for processing the claim. Hence, the claim for refund of Rs.58,000/- as the repair charges paid is not justifiable.
Coming to the issue of defects persisting after the repair, Ext.A7 (series) shows clearly the defects of the vehicle, though it is not clear whether the photos were taken before or after the repair. However, in the absence of any counter argument from the side of the opposite parties, we are bound to reach the conclusion that the repair work has not been undertaken properly by the opposite parties, inspite of a registered letter from the complainant which has to be treated as deficiency in service.
5. As a prima facie case is proved against the opposite party, the following orders are passed;
(a) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and resultant loss of income.
(b) The opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony of the complainant.
(c) The opposite parties have to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon .V,
President.
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N .K,
Member.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: True copy of the Registration Certificate of Vehicle bearing No.KL.50-J-4070.
Ext.A2: True copy the invoice dated 18.07.2022 showing repair estimate of the above mentioned vehicle for Rs.53,666/-.
Ext.A3: True copy of the letter dated 24.04.2023 from the United India Insurance Company Limited.
Ext.A4: Photocopy of the revised Invoice dated 25.08.2022 for Rs.65,006/-.
Ext.A5: Photocopy of the Revised Invoice dated 25.08.2022 which acknowledges the receipt of payment from the complainant on 14.11.2022 (Rs.58,000/-).
Ext.A6: Original letter dated 14.11.2022 by KK Agencies acknowledging that the damaged vehicle is parked in the garage of the opposite parties.
Ext.A7(a): The original photographs taken by a professional photo ten in numbers.
Ext.A7(b): The compact Disc containing the said photographs.
Ext.A7(c): The bill issues for the photography and printout charges dated 28.08.2023.
Ext.A8: True copy of the letter dated 14.12.2022 addressed to the opposite parties from the complainant.
Ext.A9: The original acknowledgement card dated 16.12.2022.
Ext.A10: The original postal receipt dated 17.12.2022.
Ext.A11: The true copy of the printout showing consignment status of the letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Cost : 10,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
