SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for getting an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.69028/- with interest. Together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of the proceedings of this complaint.
The case of the complainant is that he is the RC owner of the car KL58X950 and he insured the vehicle to OP by a bumper to bumper policy. On 8/2/2021 his vehicle was met with accident and it informed to OP, thereafter the car brought to KVR Tata motors service centre for repairing the vehicle, the total estimate assessed by the KVR is Rs.3,26,519/- that was verified by the surveyor. So that the vehicle cannot be repaired as per the total loss scheme either to accept the insured amount of Rs.3,80,000/- or to repair the vehicle to any other workshop as per the instruction given by the OP. Thereafter the complainant brought the vehicle to Automech,Karivellur and the OP advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant . Complainant’s vehicle repaired and received after 4 months , the repair charges Rs.2,84,100/-. The OP sanctioned only Rs.2,07,500/- as repair charges. The complainant contacted OP, the OP told that the labour charges mentioned in the bill is very high and only Rs.30,000/- can be allowed. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before the Grievance cell and Insurance Ombudsman. After that the complainant received an amount of Rs.7582/- from Insurance grievance cell . The complainant has spend Rs.2,84,100/- for repairing his vehicle. Whereas from OP the complainant received only Rs.2,15,082/-. The OP bound to pay Rs.68,928/- along with interest and compensation to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice OP entered appearance and filed written version stating that the on receipt of the claim intimation and the claim form along with an estimated cost for repairing then vehicle issued by KVR Dream Vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,26,519/-. It was found that the repair value was estimated be more than 75% of the sum insured and hence the claim could have been settled on total loss basis. But the complainant was not willing to settle the claim on total loss basis and hence he removed the vehicle for repair to Auto Mech Multi Brand car services and he has consented to settle the claim on the repair loss basis. The OP deputed the licensed surveyor and loss assessor to make report showing the assessment of loss due to the damage caused to the car on repair loss basis is Rs.2,07,500/- . The surveyor has moved before the insurance grievance with a complainant for allowing Rs.76410/- towards the labour charges. The OP sought a second opinion of the other surveyor whose report has assessed an additional amount of Rs.7,000/- towards labour charges. Accordingly the OP has allowed Rs.2,15,082/- to the complainant and the same was received without any protest. Even though the insurance policy is a nil depreciation one ,certain deductions as per the policy conditions are compulsory. Though towing charges for Rs.2000/- is submitted by the complainant, only Rs.1500/- is allowable. Rs.1000/- is deductible compulsorily under the policy excess, salvage value is assessed as Rs.2391/-, Rs.5879/- is deducted against the cost of battery purchase bill, since the same is not estimated or allowed in the initial estimate. Hence a sum of Rs.11,270/- is deducted from the estimated amount of the surveyor. Therefore the claim of the complainant for Rs.69028/- towards the balance of the labour charge and the claim for 2,50,000/- towards compensations are not maintainable because the OP has already paid the amount assessed by the surveyor. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
At the evidence stage, complainant filed his proof affidavit and documents. He was examined as PW1 and marked documents Exts.A1 to A7. On the side of complainant one more witness, the Proprietor of Automac work shop from where the accidental vehicle in dispute was repaired, was examined as PW2. Both witness were cross-examined by the OP. On behalf of OP, Assistant Manager of OP filed his chief affidavit and was examined as DW1 . The award passed by Insurance Ombudsman is marked as Ext.B1. After that the learned counsel of complainant filed written argument note.
It is not disputed that the complainant is the registered owner of car TATATIAGO having Reg.No.KL58X9520. It is also not disputed that complainant has taken private car package policy from OP to the car. The policy period is from 20/3/2020 to 19/3/2021. Further the insured vehicle met with an accident on 8/2/2021 and damage was caused to the car. Now the question to be decided is what amount should have been awarded to OP.
Complainant’s claim is that he paid an amount of Rs.2,84,100/-, the surveyor assessed amount. According to complainant since the policy is nil depreciation policy, he is entitled to get the entire repair amount of the car without any depreciation.
OP contended that on getting intimation about accident OP deputed an IRDAI licensed surveyor Mr.Pramod for survey and loss assessment. The surveyor assessed Rs.2,07,500/- as net loss. OP made interim payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the request of insured.
Complainant submitted estimate from the workshop Auto Mec tax invoice from Focuz Parts Mart Pvt.Ltd(Ext.A5) to corroborate its claim. On perusal of evidence of DW1, DW1 agreed about the total repair charge as Rs.2,84,010/-. According to OP in Bumper to Bumper policy, OP company is not liable to pay expense for the replacement of battery charge and also will deduct policy excess and salvage value. OP submits that on the basis of said calculation , surveyor assessed not less and the complainant is entitled to get total Rs.215082/- towards settlement of claim.
Here the complainant submitted estimate given by Auto Mec workshop(Ext.A4) in which repair charge is Rs.73500/-. Also submits towing charge received by workshop Rs.3500/-. OP admitted that the complainant has taken bumper to bumper policy but the expense incurred to the complainant for replacing the tyre of the vehicle, salvage value and policy excess were deducted. But the OP has not submitted survey report and examined the surveyor to establish its contention. On the other hand the complainant submitted estimate and repair bill etc. Moreover DW1 admitted that the complainant has given Rs.2,84,010/- towards total repair expenses and value of parts. It is an admitted fact that the OP has given Rs.215082/- to the complainant. OP does not have a case that the complainant had repaired or replaced the parts of the vehicle which were not damaged in the accident. So the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount Rs.69028/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. Rs.69028/-to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this complaint. Opposite party shall comply the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Failing which Rs.69028/- will carry interest@7% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Copy of RC
A2-Insurance certificate
A3-Estimate copy of Automac workshop,Karivellur
A5-Repair bills
A6-complaint given to OP
A7- complaint given to grievance cell at Ernakulam
B1-policy
PW1-Mathew T.V-complainant
DW1-Kishor kumar.V- witness of OP.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva /Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
