Date of filing: 21.11.2013.
Date of disposal: 17.09.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.186 of 2013
Between:
E. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Venkata Rami Reddy, Hindu, Residing at D.No.2-71, Chemudubadupalem, Kollipara Mandalam, Guntur District.
…..Complainant.
And
1. M/s Fusion Motors, Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, #40-7-6A, Beside Sidhartha Public School, Mogalrajpuram, Vijayawada – 10.
2. M/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep: by its Branch Manager, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Near Vinayaka Theatre, Ring Road, Vijayawada – 8.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 8.9.2014, in the presence of Sri T. Bhairraju, advocate for complainant; Sri Sistla Hanumantha Prasad, advocate for 1st opposite party; Sri V.V.S. Sai Babu, advocate for opposite party no.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties 1 and 2 directing them to replace the damaged portions of the body with new one without any further delay and without any further charges or alternatively to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to him enabling him to get necessary replacements/repairs from another service station, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and annoyance, costs and other reliefs.
The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant purchased Tavera vehicle bearing No.AP 07 TC 5599 from the 1st opposite party and insured the same with 2nd opposite party. He purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood. While so, on 26-3-2013 the said vehicle met with an accident resulting which the vehicle was badly damaged. Immediately the complainant informed the same to 2nd opposite party who had deputed surveyor and assessed the damage and the vehicle was sent to 2nd opposite party for repairs and they assessed the damaged portion and gave estimated quotation for repairs for Rs.7,65,834.32 ps and on 4-7-2013 the 1st opposite party informed that they completed the repairs and the final bill was come to Rs.4,27,441/-. On 4-7-2013 the 1st opposite party collected Rs.1,38,000/- from the complainant out of Rs.4,27,441/-, but not informed about the particulars of claim settled by 2nd opposite party. The complainant took the delivery of same on 4.7.2013 by paying Rs.1,38,000/-. But to his utter surprise, within 10 days of delivery, the body of vehicle has been extensively cracked and rust has come out and also noticed that some of parts of body are separated from the vehicle and it is learnt that due to improper and careless welding works at the time of attachment, the grave situation has emerged out and the 1st opposite party has indulged into committing unfair trade practice by attaching old parts of damaged body. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party and expressed his dissatisfaction, but they are quiet adamant and never bothered about complainant. The complainant approached another service center who informed that a minimum of Rs.2,00,000/- would require for carrying out necessary repairs. It is further submitted that the opposite parties 1 and 2 colluded together without replacing the new body and other spare parts. The complainant suffered both mentally and physically and also failed to pay EMI and road taxes. On 14-9-2013 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 demanding the 1st opposite party to replace new body and the 2nd opposite party to clear the doubts. The opposite parties received the notices, but kept quiet. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint as far as guided against it and further admitted about the repairing of vehicle and collecting Rs.1,38,000/- from complainant and further contended that the complainant with a dishonest intention to grab the money from the 1st opposite party got filed the complaint and that only after 14-7-2013 the 2nd opposite party paid the agreed amount and after taking delivery of repaired vehicle, the complainant has not approached the 1st opposite party nor brought his vehicle for repairs. It is further contended that there is no negligence on the part of 1st opposite party in rendering services to the complainant and that they delivered detailed invoice to complainant and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The 2nd opposite party apart from denying the material allegations of the complaint contended that they had deputed a surveyor and assessed the estimation of the damage and later the complainant shifted his vehicle to 1st opposite party and submitted claim form along with estimation of damage and subsequently the 2nd opposite party deputed another surveyor to assess the actual loss caused to vehicle and the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.3,00,310.21 ps and recommended for the same and as such they paid Rs.3,01,500/- to 1st opposite party. It is further contended that once the vehicle was repaired and took delivery, the 2nd opposite party is no way concerned with the repairs made by 1st opposite party and further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A12 on his behalf. The partner of 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit, but no documents marked. The deputy manager of 2nd opposite party filed chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 and B2.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in making defective repairs to the vehicle of complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Points No.1
6. The present case has two folds, one is prior to repair of vehicle and another is after repair of vehicle. As there is no dispute with regard to alleged accident to vehicle of complainant, repairing of vehicle by 1st opposite party, payment of amount by complainant to some extent and indemnifying the remaining amount/loss by 2nd opposite party being insurer of vehicle on the recommendation made by surveyor, there is no need to discuss the said issues. The only issue that stood for deliberation before this Forum is the things that happened after repairs. The main grievance of the complainant is that within 10 days from the date of delivery, the body of vehicle has been extensively cracked and rust has come out from various places of body and it is due to improper and careless welding works at the time of attachment and that the 1st opposite party attached old parts of damaged body without replacing it with new one and that both the opposite parties colluded together without replacing with new body and other spare parts and without servicing the vehicle. In this regard, the contention of 1st opposite party is that, after repair of vehicle, the complainant has not approached the 1st opposite party for repairs and that they have repaired the vehicle to the satisfaction of complainant and delivered detailed invoice. The contention of 2nd opposite party is that they have settled the claim and once the complainant took delivery of vehicle, they are not responsible for anything.
7. The complainant, in the first instance, in support of his contention only relied on the photographs which are marked as Ex.A5. Ex.A5 is bunch of photographs, which shows there is rust developed on some parts of the car. But the said photographs not contained the registration number of vehicle even and also the date on which they were taken. In the absence of such proof, it is very hard to ascertain whether the photographs belong to the vehicle of complainant or not. Further as per the complainant, within 10 days from the date of repairs, some parts of vehicle developed rust. ExA5 photographs disclose huge rust on parts of body, which may not possible within 10 days of repairs. Further the complainant after filing of complaint, filed Ex.A12 photographs and Ex.A10 Estimation given by Orange Auto Works Ltd., Ex.A12 photographs contains the number of vehicle and also discloses some rust on the parts of body. The complainant except making omnibus allegations that immediately he has approached the 1st opposite party and informed about the same, has not produced any material in support of his contention more particularly on the light of fact that the 1st opposite party is contending that the complainant never approached them after repair. The complainant also waited for nearly two months for issuing legal notice to 1st opposite party. Further the complainant has not got examined the said vehicle with an expert to ascertain whether the said rust emerged out due to improper and careless attitude of 1st opposite party at the time of repairs and that the 1st opposite party fixed the old parts in stead of new parts. In the absence of any such report from an expert, it is very hard to ascertain under what circumstances the parts of body developed rust and crackers.
8. So far as the liability of 2nd opposite party is concerned, the 2nd opposite party is only insurer who can indemnify the loss occurred to insured. In this case, the 2nd opposite party acted diligently in indemnifying the loss occurred to complainant. As per complainant, he was put in dark as to what amount was settled by the 2nd opposite party to 1st opposite party, as such there is deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party, for which the 2nd opposite party in its version gave detailed reply. Further the duty and obligation on the part of 2nd opposite party is only to indemnify the loss on the basis of Surveyor’s report, but the insurer is not liable for the repairs made by the service centers. Surprisingly the complainant attributed some conspiracy among the opposite parties in replacing the parts. Except making allegations, the complainant not produced any material in support of his case. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by complainant. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of opposite parties and against the complainant.
Point No.2
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of September, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 27.03.2013 Photocopy of job-card check slip.
Ex.A2 Copies of retails invoices.
Ex.A3 Copies of repair estimation bills.
Ex.A4 04.07.2013 Copy of cash receipt.
Ex.A5 Photos.
Ex.A6 14.09.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs.
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A9 30.11.2013 Photocopy reply notice got issued by OP.1 to complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A10 21.03.23014 Copy of accident repair estimation.
Ex.A11 Photocopy of account copy.
Ex.A12 Photos.
On behalf of the opposite party.2:
Ex.B1 10.06.2013 Photocopy of Motor (Final – Assessment) Survey report.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of claim payment voucher.
Ex.B3 02.02.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
