Date of filing:20.8.2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:11.4.2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

        Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT

                                  SMT N.TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER

                                  SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L.,            MEMBER

       FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

C.C.No.151 OF 2013.

Between :

Sri Kotoori Rosaiah, S/o Sri Kotoori Subba Rao, 30 years, R/o Door No.5-27A, Chandrala, Mylavaram, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh – 521 230 Rep., by Consumers’ Guidance Society, Having its Registered and Administration Office at Flat No.1, 1^st Floor, D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010.

….. Complainant.

And

1. M/s ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, 5^th Floor, Upstairs of Anjaneya Jewelries, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 520 010.,

2. M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, Murali Chamber Complex, Near Benz Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada – 520 010

3. Jasper Industries Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Door No.1-88-1, N.H.5, Gudavalli, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. 521 104.

…..Opposite Parties.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 28.3.2014 in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society representing the complainant and                  Sri T.Veerabhadra Rao, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and Sri B.V.S.R.Prasad, Counsel for opposite party No.3 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 Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the 1^st opposite party to issue work order approval to the 3^rd opposite party for undertaking repairs, to direct the 2^nd opposite party not to insist for payment of installment until delivery of repaired vehicle, to award compensation of Rs.500/- per day and for other reliefs.

1.         The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the complainant had availed loan of Rs.4,05,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 12.1.2013 for purchase of TATA Super ACE 475 TCIC vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TD 3317 on the representations made by the personnel of 2^nd opposite party and upon the pressure of 2^nd opposite party, the complainant took policy from the 1^st opposite party which is sister concern of the 2^nd  opposite party vide policy No.3003/TM-00023514/00/000 and paid the necessary charges. While so, the said vehicle was met with accident on 9.4.2013 near Peravelli in which the vehicle was damaged and the complainant immediately informed the same to the 1^st opposite party who in turn directed the complainant to deliver the said vehicle at 3^rd opposite party for assessing the quantum of damage of vehicle by surveyor for facilitating repairs by issuing work order to the 3^rd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant delivered the said vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party on 10.4.2013. Subsequently the authorized surveyor of the 1^st opposite party had examined and inspected the vehicle at the 3^rd opposite party premises.  But the 1^st opposite party had been intentionally and wantonly delaying in issuing work approval to the 3^rd opposite party on the ground of want of no objection certificate from the 2^nd opposite party.  In the mean while the 3^rd opposite party demanded the complainant to pay the slap garage rent for keeping the vehicle in the garage and the 2^nd opposite party to pay the outstanding loan amount.  Having vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.22.6.2013 to the opposite parties 1 to 3.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 received the notices and maintained silence and finally filed the present complaint.

2.         After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. After receipt of notices, opposite parties 1 and 3 filed separate versions.  The adoption memo filed on behalf of 2^nd opposite party is not accepted as he already remained absent.  The 1^st opposite party filed version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and stated that the complainant submitted the claim form on 10.4.2013 to the 1^st opposite party and one Mr.Janatha Kumar M.R., Surveyor and Loss Assessor and valuer conducted survey and took photographs and assessed the net loss at Rs.12,800/- and submitted report.  It is further stated that the 1^st opposite party sent letters on 31.5.2013 and reminders dt.14.6.2013 and 12.7.2013 to the complainant to carry out the repair as per the assessment given by Surveyor and submit the repair invoice, but the complainant did not respond.  It is further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.         The 3^rd opposite party filed version stating that this 3^rd opposite party has estimated the cost of repairs to a tune of Rs.2,70,000/- and out of that an amount of Rs.90,000/- fell to the share of complainant and out of that opposite party has requested to pay Rs.45,000/- in advance to start repairs and that the 3^rd opposite party is no way concerned to start the repairs without advance payment from the complainant and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.         The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.  Subsequently he filed additional chief affidavit and got marked Ex.A11 to Ex.A13.  The Manager of 1^st opposite party filed chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B15 on its behalf and Sri Y.Veerabhadra Rao, Manager (HR) filed his affidavit on behalf of the 3^rd opposite party.

5.         Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.

6.         Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 in not issuing work order to 3^rd opposite party for repairing the lorry by 3^rd opposite party?

1. If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

POINT NO.1:-

7.         A perusal of the record discloses that, the scope of present complaint is very limited as there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of lorry by complainant, existence of insurance with 1^st opposite party, accident to lorry at Peravelli, damages to lorry, deputation of surveyor by the 1^st opposite party and shifting of lorry to 3^rd opposite party premises for repairs.  A perusal of record further discloses that the insurance is in force on the date of accident and that the complainant shifted the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party premises on 10.4.2013, which is evident from Ex.A5.  The main grievance of the complainant is that from 10.4.2013 the vehicle is at 3^rd opposite party premises for want of work order from the 1^st opposite party to repair the vehicle. From the perusal of Ex.A6 letter dt.24.5.2013 addressed by the 3^rd opposite party, it is clear that the vehicle is with the 3^rd opposite party from 10.4.2013 as they have not received any work order/repair advance and the 3^rd opposite party charged Rs.150/- per day towards garage rent.  In this regard, the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that initially they have verbally requested the complainant to carry out the repair as per the assessment given by the surveyor and submit the repair invoice and as the complainant failed to comply with the same, the 1^st opposite party also addressed a letter dt.31.5.2013 under Ex.B9, Reminder No.1 dt.14.6.2013 under Ex.B10 and reminder No.2 dt.12.7.2013 under Ex.B11.  The complainant has not denied the said factum of letters addressed by the 1^st opposite party in the complaint and on the other hand filed Ex.A8 letter dt.12.7.2013 (Ex.B11).  As such, it is clear that the complainant has received Ex.A8 letter from the 1^st opposite party.  But it seems that the complainant has not taken any steps for compliance of the conditions laid down in the said letter.  Further according to the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant has to pay Rs.45,000/- towards his share for repairing the said vehicle out of total amount.  The complainant ought to have paid the said amount to the 3^rd opposite party for starting the repair work.  Hence, it is clear that the complainant has not shown any interest in getting repairs to the lorry. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is only a sister concern of the 1^st opposite party from whom the complainant has taken loan.  The payment of loan installments and interest thereon are no way concerned with the present complaint.  The 3^rd opposite party is only servicing center who can repair the lorry after payment of amounts only. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3.

8.         As the complainant has failed to comply with the directions of the opposite party No.1, the decisions relied on by the complainant i.e. (I) Between New India Assurance Co., Ltd Vs. S.K. Pruthi in F.A.No.362/1993, dt.4.8.1994 of Hon'ble National Commission and (ii) Between National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Ani Lamba in F.A.No.129/2001, dt.2.12.2002 of Hon'ble National Commission have no bearing to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

POINT No.2:-

9.         In the result, this complaint is ordered accordingly directing the complainant to pay Rs.45,000/- to the 3^rd opposite party for repairs and on receipt of the same, the 3^rd opposite party is directed to repair the  vehicle and hand over the original bills to the complainant for onward submission of same by him to the 1^st opposite party for processing of claim.  The complaint against the opposite parties 2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the compensation and costs.

Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11^th day of April, 2014.

PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                   MEMBER                                 MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

P.W.1 Kotoori Rosaiah                                                       D.W.1 P.V.Siva Kumar     Complainant   

                                                                                                Manager Legal of the

            (by affidavit)                                                                   1^st opposite party

                                                                                                            (by affidavit)

                                                                                                D.W.2 Y.Veerabhadra Rao,

                                                                                               Manager (HR) of the 3^rd opposite party

                                                                                                  (by affidavit)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A.1            12.01.2013    Goods Carrying package Policy Certificate cum policy schedule.

Ex.A.2            22.01.2013    Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A.3            31.01.2013    Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

Ex.A.4            29.01.2013    Photocopy of Certificate of Fitness.

Ex.A.5            10.04.2013    Job card.

Ex.A.6            24.05.2013    Letter from the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A.7            22.06.2013    Office copy of legal notice along with two postal acknowledgements.

Ex.A.8            12.07.2013    Reminder-2 letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A.9            20.07.2013    Reply letter from the complainant to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A.10              .    .              Four loan recall notices from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A.11          04.12.2013    Letter from the complainant to Sri Ameya Sukhi, Customer Service (Motor) of the 1^st opposite party office at Mumbai.

Ex.A.12          10.12.2013    Postal receipt.

Ex.A.13              .    .              Booklet of India Motor Tariff.

On behalf of the opposite parties:-

Ex.B.1            12.01.2013    Photocopy of Goods Carrying Package Policy Certificate cum Policy Schedule.

Ex.B.2            10.04.2013    Claim form for Motor vehicle.

Ex.B.3            12.01.2013    Photocopy of Goods Carrying Package Policy Certificate cum Policy Schedule.

Ex.B.4            31.01.2013    Photocopy of Certificate of registration.

Ex.B.5            06.12.2013    Surveyor report.

Ex.B.6            10.04.2013    Estimate issued by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.B.7            13.04.2013    letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B.8            13.04.2013    Photocopy of Statement issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B.9            31.05.2013    Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B.10          14.06.2013    Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B.11          12.07.2013    Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B.12              .    .              Courier receipt.

Ex.B.13              .    .              Courier receipt.

Ex.B.14              .    .              Photocopy of postal receipt.

Ex.B.15              .    .              Letter from the opposite party to the complainant.

                                                                         PRESIDENT