By: Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is the registered0 owner of vehicle No. KL-10-AV-6300 Etios car which was insured with the first opposite party vide policy No.TIT/91814341 and it is valid for the period 11/05/2019 to 10/05/2020. The earlier policy also was issued by the first opposite party. The officials of the first opposite party informed the complainant the policy will cover whole risk and it is termed as bumper-to-bumper insurance. The premium is very high for these type of polices. The vehicle was not met with any accident in earlier years and the policy was renewed every year. The complainant paid Rs.15,824/- and the first opposite party sanctioned no claim bonus to reduce the premium. The complainant submitted that the officials of the first opposite party was available in the showroom for the second opposite party to can vas the policy.
2. The vehicle was met with an accident on 15/01/2020 at Kondotty and the matter was informed to the second opposite party. The first opposite party was also informed and they directed the complainant to be towed the vehicle to the service center of the second opposite party. The opposite parties informed that they will take care of the vehicle since the vehicle is having bumper to bumper risk coverage. The complainant submitted all the documents signed to the officials of the opposite parties. It was informed that the vehicle will be repaired as per the quality of Toyota company.
3. The complainant submitted that he contacted the second opposite party to see the progress of the repair and the second opposite party officials did not allow to see the vehicle from near distance. The entry to the work shop was prohibited by the officials.
4. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after repair work on 13/02/2020. The second opposite party stated that the complainant should pay Rs.18,912/- to take delivery of the car. The first opposite party officials stated that their surveyor assessed only balance amount. The opposite parties informed that only after paying the amount the vehicle can be delivered. The vehicle was not shown the complainant and after paying the amount of Rs.18,912/- the second opposite party staff directed to sign in some records in blank forms. The complainant did so to get the vehicle duly.
5. Just after the delivery of the car it was seen that there is scratches on back side of the car, the right driver side rear view mirror is seen damaged, not replaced / repaired, rear side bumper is not repaired, damages still exists, running body is damaged and not repaired, and there is scratch mark on the bottom portion of doors. The complainant enquired the details and it was found that the surveyor not directed to repair these damages. The complainant contacted a person who stated that he is the work manager and enquired the details. The said person stated that though the insurance is bumper to bumper, the surveyor not allowed to repair above mentioned defects stating that the same is not necessary to run the vehicle. If these damages are repaired there will be high cost of painting and the insurance company is not ready to pay it. But these things are not informed to the complainant.
6. The complainant submit that he checked the bills and found that the opposite parties charged the complainant for labor charges to repair front left side door, painting charges, labor and parts cost of Rs.4,102/- for front pad, disc, wiper, tail lamp, wheel bearing, coil sleeves, silencer, engine under guard damage, etc. The second opposite party charges Rs.6,491/- without any bill also. This amount of Rs.18,912/- is collected illegally from the complainant. It was seen that as per the bill Rs.61,172/- is payable and the complainant was not informed the details of payment received from the first opposite party. The work executed is shabby and the car is not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. The second opposite party will take the vehicle to the works section and no one is allowed to enter and see his vehicle. Only after settling whole bill, the vehicle will be delivered. Then only the complainant saw the defects, by the time the second opposite party collected the money, obtained many blank forms signed. The repairs are done as per instruction of the surveyor is the answer given by the second opposite party. The complainant was not informed about the existence of the surveyor or his directions. The complainant should spend Rs.80,000/- to restore the car to its original condition. The complainant produced photographs to show the damages which are not repaired by the opposite parties. The first opposite party officials stated that the necessary repair to run the vehicle will be done free of cost, even though the policy is bumper to bumper. The complainant submitted that while the policy was canvased by the opposite parties there was promises for full payment of repair charges to restore the vehicle to its original condition. Now the promises were given a go by and the complainant was put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship.
7. The complainant submitted that he maintained the vehicle in a top condition and the bumper-to-bumper insurance was taken only to protect the vehicle. The higher premium was collected by the first opposite party and now the complainant’s car is not in good shape and look. The complainant should spend a lot to restore the car to its original look and conditions. Under the guise of providing entire expenses by a bumper-to-bumper policy, the opposite parties cheated the complainant. The complainant alleged service standard was very bad and the opposite parties committed gross deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prayed to refund Rs.18,912/- from the opposite parties and sought direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000 to restore the vehicle and to allow compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, losses suffered etc. and cost.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice both opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
9. The first opposite party submitted version denying the material allegations in the complaint against the first opposite party.
10. The first opposite party admitted that the vehicle of the complainant KL-10-AV 6300 was insured by first opposite party and a claim for damages had received by them.
11. Opposite party No.1 appointed the surveyor to inspect the vehicle for assessing damages and in consultation with the second opposite party it was proposed an amount of Rs.54,681.33 /- as the total payable cost of repairs. After repair work the first opposite party paid the amount directly to the second opposite party. The first opposite party submitted that they are not responsible for any amount collected by the second opposite party from the complainant. The second opposite party may have their own justifications and may have carried out work not related to the accidental damage.
12. The opposite party submitted that the amount paid to the complainant is as per terms of the insurance policy as assessed by the surveyor. The surveyor is appointed by the first opposite party as a requirement of law and when such a surveyor who is a professional to asses such loss give us a report with reasons to support the same, such a report can be discredited only on the basis of specific grounds. The first opposite party specifically submitted that the matter has been concluded by them with in the time frame approved by IRDAI. The first opposite party denied the allegation of deficiency in service and so the prayer is to dismiss the complaint against the first opposite party.
13 The second opposite party filed version specifically denying the allegations in the complaint.
14. The second opposite party admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle and he had availed insurance from the first opposite party during the period from 11/05/2019 to 10/05/2020. But submitted that the dispute is related to insurance claim which is with the first opposite party, the insurance company.
15. The opposite party denied the averment that the vehicle was not met with accident earlier and the payment of premium amount. The second opposite party denied the allegation the employees of the first opposite party will be available with the second opposite party to canvas the insurance. The transaction regarding the insurance is only between the customers and insurance company.
16. The second opposite party admitted that complainant had informed about the accident took place on 15/01/2020 at Kondotty. But the opposite party is not aware of the contention regarding the insurance of bumper to bumper and the conditions thereon. The opposite party denied that the second opposite party had discussed with the first opposite party and the surveyor etc. The opposite party also denied the averment that the complainant was not allowed to see the repair work from close to the vehicle. The second opposite party had allowed the complainant to watch the repair work of the vehicle close to the vehicle. The complainant was permitted to enter the place of repair whenever he requested.
17. The opposite party denied the averment that they demanded Rs.18,912/- at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It is submitted that it was informed to the complainant when the vehicle was brought to repair before the second opposite party that the damages sustained prior to the accident will not be covered under the policy and the claim will not be considered by the first opposite party and so the expenses has to be paid by the complainant himself and the said fact was admitted by the complainant. It is denied that the vehicle was not shown to the complainant till payment of 18,912/- rupees. It is also denied that the second opposite party collected blank signed documents and forms from the complainant. The allegation that the complainant came to know certain defects of the vehicle just after delivery of the vehicle. The second opposite party submitted that they had repaired all the defects in accordance with the instruction of insurance company, the first opposite party. The second opposite party did not carry certain works since the insurance company surveyor reported that there was multiple damages to the vehicle and the repair work was done in accordance with the direction of insurance surveyor. The said fact was duly informed the complainant and convincing the same the vehicle was taken for repair work. The insurance companies are acting in accordance with the norms laydown by the IRDA. The second opposite party have no role in the dispute and there is no any sort of deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party. The allegation that the second opposite party collected an amount of Rs.6,491/- without any bill is incorrect. Certain defective parts of the vehicle was replaced which are not part of the accident and the same was did as per the request of the complainant and the cost was realized for the same. All those things are happened due to regular use of the vehicle and damages caused prior to the accident is issue in the complaint. The said claim cannot be incorporated as part of the present claim.
18. The opposite party submitted that the contention i.e., the vehicle was kept in a good condition and bumper-to-bumper insurance policy was availed for the said purpose is not correct. It is submitted that the complainant was duly informed while the vehicle was brought to the work shop about the earlier defects caused to the vehicle and it was also had informed the repair can be done in accordance with insurance surveyors valuation. It is submitted that the opposite party did not receive any amount from the complainant. But everything is done as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. it is submitted that there is no any sort of deficiency in service from the part of second opposite patty and so the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite party.
19. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext A1 to A4 and documents of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. A1 is series of photos of the car to show the defects of the vehicle. Ext. A2 is copy of cash receipt voucher dated 13/02/2020 for Rs.18,912/-. Ext. A3 is copy of certificate of registration in respect to vehicle No. KL-10-AV- 6300. Ex.t A4 is copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule which is valid from 11/05/2019 to 10/05/2020/ private car package policy/ Policy No. TIT/91693737. Ext. B1 is copy of motor final survey report dated 08/02/2020 in respect of vehicle No .KL- 10-AV- 6300. Ext. B2 is photos of defective car. Ext. B3 series photos of the defective car.
20. Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The complainant and the first opposite party filed argument note also. The following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite
parties?
2) Relief and cost
21. Point No.1
It is admitted fact the vehicle was insured with the first opposite party vide policy No. TIT/91814341 which is a bumper-to-bumper policy. The vehicle was met with an accident on 15/01/2020 at Kondotty and thereafter the vehicle was towed to the service center, the second opposite party. The first opposite party deputed a surveyor and he prepared Ext. B1 motor final survey report. The net assessment as per B1 document is Rs.54,681/-. But the second opposite party realized an excess amount of Rs.18,912/- from the complainant. The complainant submit that the second opposite party illegally collected the said amount of Rs.18,912/- since the entire liability is covered by the insurance policy. Moreover the complainant alleged some of the defects caused to the vehicle was not rectified by the second opposite party. The complainant further contended that he had not entrusted the second opposite party to carry out any of the work which is not covered by the insurance policy.
22. The complainant produced Ext. A1 to A4 to prove his case. Ext. A1 is series of photos of the car to show the defects caused to the car. The complainant submitted that even after service from the second opposite party there are scratches and other marks over the vehicle which is not yet rectified by the second opposite party. Ext. A1 document substantiate the same. The complainant submitted that the opposite party collected an amount of Rs.18,912/- as excess amount against the assessed amount of insurance surveyor. Ext. A2 series reveals the collection of the said amount. As per Ext. A2 series shows that the second opposite party collected a total amount of Rs.73,593/- . But the first opposite party insurance company allowed only Rs.54,681/- as per the final survey report. So, it is established that the second opposite party collected an amount of Rs.18,912/- in excess of the insurance survey amount.
23. It can be seen from the version of the second opposite party in para 8 that the second opposite party carried out certain works which are not admitted by the first opposite party as per insurance survey report. It is submitted that the front pad, disc, wiper, tail lamp, wheel bearing, coil sleeves, silencer and engine under guard damage etc. are the works carried out after collecting additional charges from the complainant at his request. It is also submitted that the insurance surveyor had admitted that there was damages to the vehicle in addition to the accident damages. The opposite parties submitted that though there is bumper to bumper insurance coverage they are only liable for damages arising out of an accident and they are not liable for normal wear and tear. So it is evident that there was some damages to the vehicle which was not covered by the surveyor report and that has been attended by the second opposite party. It is quite natural to collect additional amount by the service center when the same is not covered by the insurance survey report. Now the question arises whether the second opposite party was duly authorized to carry out the said work by the complainant and whether the additional work was duly convinced the complainant. The complainant raised the issue that the second opposite party was not authorized to carry out any work except under the insurance coverage and moreover the second opposite party left unattended certain defects to the vehicle. Documents shows that there are some defects are remaining unattended by the second opposite party and at the same time the second opposite party has been collected additional amount for the additional work carried out by the second opposite party. But the second opposite party failed to produce the document to establish for the additional work had been authorized to carry out by the second opposite party. The second opposite party is not authorized the additional work except as per the insurance survey report and so the second opposite party is not entitled whatever be the reason, to realize excess mount from the complainant. Hence the second opposite party is liable to refund the excess mount collected from the complainant. The document Ext. A2 series shows that the second opposite party realized the amount for the work carried out by them. So we consider that the complainant is not entitled any compensation except refund of the excess amount collected by the second opposite party. The complainant is entitled cost of Rs.5,000/- also.
24. Point No.2
The complainant prayed an amount of Rs.80,000/- to restore the vehicle in to the previous condition and also 1,00,000/- rupees as compensation towards the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant prayed for the refund of Rs.18,912/-, the excess amount collected from the complainant and also the cost.
25. It is found that the complainant is not entitled any compensation for the reason stated above. We don’t find reason to allow Rs.80,000/- to restore the vehicle as claimed in the complaint. We find that an order to refund the excess amount collected by the second opposite party to the complainant will be reasonable in the matter. The complainant is entitled for cost and the commission fix the same as Rs.5,000/-.
In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows:-
- The second opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.18,912/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and twelve only) to the complainant.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The second opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 9 per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of complaint to till date of payment.
Dated this 28th day of November, 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.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: series of photos of the car to show the defects of the vehicle.
Ext.A2: Copy of cash receipt voucher dated 13/02/2020 for Rs.18,912/-.
Ext A3: Copy of certificate of registration in respect to vehicle No.KL 10AV 6300.
Ext A4: Copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule which is valid form
11/05/2019 to 10/05/2020/ private car package policy/ Policy No.
TIT/91693737.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 and DW2
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of motor final survey report dated 08/02/2020 in respect of vehicle No
.KL 10 AV 6300.
Ext.B2: Photos of defective car.
Ext.B3: series photos of the defective car.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
