DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  25^th day of  May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                    :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                              Date of Filing: 03/05/2019  

                         CC/133/2019

Anima E.N.

W/o. Ranjith K. Namboothiri,

13/543, Elayadath Mana,

Thannissery, Palakkad – 678 501                         -                       Complainant

       (By Adv. A.V. Ravi.)

                                                                                                Vs

1. M/s.Pinnacle Nissan 

Sai Krishna Apartments,

Kunnathurmedu Post,

Palakkad – 678 013

2.         M/s.Bajaj Allianze GIC Ltd.,

            3^rd Floor, City Castle,

            East Fort, Thrissur – 680 005                                      -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.1  by Adv. K.V. Sujith

O.P.2 by Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Flaccid allegation in the memorandum of complaint is that the vehicle of the complainant crashed against a milestone and suffered damages. But the opposite parties failed to carry out any works or honour the insurance coverage provided under the policy issued by the 2^nd O.P. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed.
2. The 1^st opposite party pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The vehicle was towed to the premises of the 1^st O.P. and since the complainant insisted that the repairs be carried out under insurance coverage, the vehicle was kept in the yard. This O.P. was ready to carry out the works of the complainant’s car upon payment. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the dispute is between the complainant and 2^nd O.P.
3. The 2^nd complainant pleaded that the damages suffered by the car was merely consequential in nature which is not covered under the policy. Further, no opportunity was provided to the surveyor of the 2^nd O.P. to verify the damage as the vehicle was removed from the site. Be as it may, the 2^nd O.P. was ready and willing to indemnify the complainant to a tune of Rs. 12,593/-. This fact was informed to the complainant twice. But the complainant, without responding to the offer of the O.P., chose to file this complaint. The 2^nd O.P. sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Pleadings and counter-pleadings considered, the following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st O.P.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to indemnification of the entire expenses incurred for carrying out the repairs?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

5.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)     Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A3.

    (ii)    OP1 filed Proof affidavit.

    (iii)   O.P.2 filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B5. Witnesses from the part of O.P.2 were examined as DW1 and DW2. 

Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         O.P.1 is the service centre. Except for a vapid statement, nothing solid is made out in the pleading as against O.P.1. Even the proof affidavit of the complainant has got no solid allegations directly aimed at the 1^st O.P. Hence we are constrained to hold that there is no deficiency in service as against O.P.1.

Issue No.2

7.         Same as in the case of 1^st O.P., the pleadings of the complaint does not reveal a strong cause of action. Neither are specific objections to the pleadings in version of O.P.2 forthcoming in the proof affidavit. The complainant has not produced any documents to show the amount, if any, expended by them for repairing of the car. Complainant has got no objection to Ext. B3 and B4 communications as well. Even the witnesses of the O.P.2 were not cross examined effectively. 

8.         Ext. B3 and B4 communications were issued by the O.P.2 to complainant. Marking of said exhibits were not objected to by the complainant. Further they also have no case that the said documents were not issued by O.P.2 or that the said documents were not received by them. Hence we presume that Exts. B3 and B4 documents were received by the complainant and that there is a completed offer. But the complainant has failed to respond to the same.

9.         Complainant has not furthered a case that they were not aware of the offer put forward by the 2^nd O.P. Therefore the case of the 2^nd O.P. that they had made an offer to the complainant and the complainant has failed to respond to the same stands unrefuted.

10.       Thus we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service as against O.P.2.

            Issue No.3

11.       As already stated, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s.

            Issue No.4

12.                   As a result we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

Issue No.5

13.       In the natural course, the complaint is only liable to be dismissed without any reliefs. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the 2^nd O.P. has agreed to indemnify the complainant in terms of Exts. B3 and B4, we direct the 2^nd O.P. to consider the claim of the complainant, if the complainant produces the documents as sought for in Ext. B3 and B4 documents within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this Order.

14.       At this juncture we deprecate the conduct on the part of the complainant in towing in the 1^st O.P., who was not at fault. The 1^st O.P. was ready and willing to carry out the works for their service charges. That is a pure act of impetuousness and vexation. Merely because one can pull in a party to a dispute by inserting some allegations in a plaint, that should not be a license to wreak havoc on someone. In the facts here, the complainant has no clear cut case as against the 1^st O.P. She also did not have any evidence as against them.

15.       Such a conduct cannot go un-penalized. We impose a nominal cost of Rs. 7,500/-on the complainant payable to the 1^st O.P. within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this Order.

16.       With the above two directions we dismiss the complaint. 

Pronounced in open court on this the 25^th  day of May,  2023.

                    Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President  

       Sd/-                                             Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 2/10/2018

Ext.A2 – Original of returned cover addressed to OP2

Ext.A3 – Original of lawyer’s notice dated 30/11/2018    

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 –  Copy of private care package policy schedule

 Ext.B2 – Copy of preliminary survey report  

Ext.B3 –   Copy of communication dated 13/2/2019

Ext.B4 –   Copy of communication dated 6/2/2019

Ext.B5 –   Copy of repudiation letter dated 20/2/2019  

 Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Reshma A. (Senior Legal Executive of OP2)

DW2 – Jose N. Mathew, Insurance Surveyor

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.