By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is state as follows:-
1. The complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thecomplainant had purchased an electric car from the shop of the opposite party. The vehicle number is KL-71 H-9797. At the time of purchase, the opposite party offered to subscribe insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company Limited. According to the complainant, he made to believe by the opposite party that it got tie up with the above said insurance company and if the complainant is subscribed return to invoice policy he will be refunded the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs 16,87,604/- ( Rupees sixteen lakh eighty seven thousand six hundred and four only) if the vehicle is sustained total loss due to accident. Accordingly, relying the words of the opposite party, the complainant subscribed insurance policy under the guidance of the opposite party. On 15/08/2021 the insured vehicle met with an accident at Ponmundam, Tirur and total loss was sustained to the vehicle. Then the complainant approached the opposite party to claim the benefit provided under the coverage of above said insurance policy. But it is understood that the opposite party arranged only bumper to bumper insurance coverage to the insured vehicle not insured the vehicle as promised for return to invoice type policy. It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party had collected premium amount for subscribing return to invoice insurance policy but the opposite party paid for bumper to bumper and thereby cheated the complainant. According to the complainant, he will be only provided with IDV amount as per the norms of insurance company and the complainant had incurred unnecessary expenses due to the illegal act of the opposite party. The opposite party had unlawfully collected a huge amount from the complainant under the manoeuvre of subscription of return to invoice policy. The subscription of bumper to bumper policy caused financial loss to the complainant. The complainant had remitted Rs.50,365/- (Rupees fifty thousand three hundred and sixty five only) for availing return to invoice policy, but the opposite party arranged bumper to bumper policy causing financial damage to the complainant. After one month, the opposite party taken custody of the damaged vehicle and offered to deliver the same for Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only) after repairment. When the complainant approached for taking the vehicle, the opposite party demanded another Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only ) as estimate fee. On bargaining, the opposite party reduced with Rs. 8,630/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and thirty only). Subsequently the complainant was compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 8,630/- to the opposite party. The opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. The opposite party illegally collected Rs. 8,630/- after fixing Rs.70,000/- as the price of vehicle which had sustained total loss. The complainant had also incurred Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as expenses for hiring vehicles to travel. The complainant had sustained financial loss, suffered mental agony and hardship due to the irresponsible act of the opposite party. So the complainant approached this Commission praying for redressing his grievances. The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.8,630/- as the amount collected under the head of estimate fee and also prayed for reimbursement of Rs.50,000/- as the expenses incurred for hiring vehicles for travelling purposes. The complainant also claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh only) from the opposite party as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. The complainant also claimed cost of the proceedings from the opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted and the Commission issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared before the Commission through his counsel but did not file version to oppose the case of the complainant. So the Commission proceeded with exparte.
3. The complainant filed affidavit and also produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to A3 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 30/01/2021 issued by the opposite party to the complainant showing the price of the vehicle as Rs.15,34,999/- ( Rupees fifteen lakh thirty four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only). Ext A2 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 24/11/2021 issued by the opposite party showing final labour invoice amount as Rs.8,630.52/-. Ext A3 document is the copy of estimation dated 26/08/2021 issued by the opposite party showing the estimate of repair works after accident.
4. Heard the complainant and gone through documents including affidavit. The Commission considered following points for adjudication of the dispute.
- Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service in this case?
- If yes, what will be ordered as relief and cost?
- Point No. (1) & (2):
The complainant stated that he had purchased an electric car from the opposite party. The complainant produced tax invoice dated 30/01/2021 showing the price of the vehicle as Rs.15,34,999/-. The copy of tax invoice is marked as Ext.A1 document. According to the complainant the insurance of the vehicle was done by the opposite party after making an impression that the opposite party has tie up with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. It is stated by the complainant that he was made believe that the insurance coverage was availed as return to invoice policy in order to get refund of the price of the vehicle in case of total loss in an accident. Unfortunately on 15/08/2021 the vehicle met with an accident and total loss occurred to the vehicle. The complainant produced copy of estimation issued by the opposite party showing the total amount for repair work and same is marked by the Commission as Ext.A3 document. Ext.A3 document also shows that vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited. But when the complainant moved for insurance claim under return to invoice policy, he came to know that the insurance coverage was availed only to bumper to bumper. So according to the complainant he was cheated by the opposite party and the opposite party made unlawful gain from the premium amount collected to avail return to invoice policy. The complainant did not produce documents related to insurance policy. It is contented that the opposite party had illegally collected Rs.8,630/- as estimate fee after fixing the price of damaged vehicle as Rs.70,000/-. It is stated in the affidavit that the opposite party has agreed to sell the damaged vehicle to the complainant for Rs. 70,000/-. But it is alleged by the complainant that when he approached the opposite party for taking the vehicle after payment of price as agreed by the opposite party, the opposite party demanded additional amount of Rs.8,630/-. The complainant produced tax invoice dated 24/11/2021 issued by the opposite party which is showing the expenses of Rs. 8,630.52/- incurred as labour charges. According to the complainant the opposite party acted arbitrarily and committed deficiency in service. There is no contra evidence available in this case. Even though a counsel is appeared for the opposite party no further step is taken. So the contention raised by the complainant stands unrebutted. The complainant succeeded in proving his case. The complainant did not produced any document to show the actual expenses incurred for hiring of vehicles to travel in the absence of his own vehicle.Moreover the complainant also failed to bring out the details of hired vehicle and the kilometres he travelled by using the hired vehicle. So the Commission is declined to order reimbursement of expenses incurred for hiring of vehicle. The complainant claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensationfor the sufferings of mental agonyand hardship.The Commission considers the claim amount as a huge one.So the Commission stipulate the amount of compensation as Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 4,00,000/- claimed. There is no evidence with regard to the dispute related to the nature of availed insurance policy. Hence the complaint is allowed in the following manner:
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.8,630/-(Rupees Eight thousand three hundred and thirty only) to the complainant as the amount illegally collected for repairing work.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum, from the date of order till its realisation.
Dated this 28th day of April, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 30/01/2021 issued by the
opposite party to the complainant showing the price of the vehicle as
Rs.15,34,999/- ( Rupees fifteen lakh thirty four thousand nine hundred and
ninety nine only).
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 24/11/2011 issued by the
opposite party showing final labour invoice amount as Rs.8,630.52/-.
Ext.A3 : Document is the copy of estimation dated 26/08/2021 issued by the
opposite party showing the estimate of repair works.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
