Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/78/2015

M/s.G.Shoba - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Gigi Pramod and Gijesh Gopal

22 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  26.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 22^nd DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.78/2015

 

Mrs.G.Shoba,

No.150/151, 7^th Main Road,

C-Block, Thanikachalam Nagar,

Ponniammanmedu,

Chennai – 600 110.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Sicagen India Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

4^th Floor, SPIC House,

No.88, Mount House,

Guindy,Chennai – 32.

 

2.ACT INDIA,

Rep by its Manager,

No.131, G.N.T.Road,

Ponniammanmedu,

Madhavaram,Chennai – 600 110.

 

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

No.703, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 079.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 20.05.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.Gigi Pramod & Gijesh Gopal

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties     :M/s. P.T.Perumal, I.Jayaseelan, P.Shahul

                                                                   Hameed &V.Vargees Amal Raja

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                       : R.Ravichandran      

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to handover the vehicle to the complainant in good condition along with seven month EMIs of Rs.4,32,481/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant states that the 1^st opposite party is carrying on a business of service and repair centre. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration number TN05 A8176. The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.08.2014. The 3^rd opposite party surveyed the same and gave approval for repair and replacement for the said vehicle and even gave their estimation on 16.08.2014. The 1^st opposite party had contacted the complainant and requested her to leave the vehicle at the 2^nd opposite party’s work place for repair, the 1^st opposite party were also promised the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party will not collect any advance or payment from the complainant for the said vehicle’s repair. The 2^nd opposite party also informed that he is having tie up with the United India Insurance Company, hence the 2^nd opposite party will recover the amount spent towards the repair for the said vehicle from the said 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant had let her vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party’s garage for repair in the month of August 2014 and he promised to return the vehicle within 20 days.

          2. The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party directly to know the status of vehicle, the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to give some more time to finish the 2^nd opposite party’s work and hand over the vehicle. The 2^nd opposite party was not interested in repairing the vehicle and return the same to the complainant. Hence the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to return the vehicle and to hand over the same to the complainant to precede the business and to pay EMIs.  The complainant was not able to pay the EMIs from the month of September 2014 due to the above said reasons. The complainant vehicle was kept in the 2^nd opposite party’s garage even after several request from the complainant through phone and in person to return the same he had not complied.

3. The 1^st opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant dated 26.12.2014 alleging the complainant to pay the rent from 01.08.2014 to 25.12.2014 amounting to Rs.31,750/-. The said vehicle was not let for parking in the 1^st opposite party’s garage. It is left to the 2^nd opposite party’s garage.  It is the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any steps to repair the said vehicle and kept it simply in the 2^nd opposite party’s garage for months. The complainant could not able to proceed with the business as the lorry is in the 2^nd opposite party’s garage under repair hence the complainant faced a huge loss in her business. The complainant even sent a letter dated at 09.01.2015 to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by stating all the above facts. The opposite parties had received the same and remained deaf ears to the complainant’s requests. The complainant further sent a legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party on 21.01.2015 and no reply sent by him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to handover the vehicle to the complainant in good condition along with seven month EMIs of Rs.4,32,481/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.         

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES 1&2 IN BRIEF

          The complainant himself approached and voluntarily brought the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party for repair. The complainant obtained estimation for the said vehicle. The 2^nd opposite party did not make any such promise to the complainant to repair/service and return the vehicle in good condition within 20 days, since the given estimation has not been approved by the complainant. The complainant brought her vehicle on 14.08.2014. The opposite party’s service adviser attended the complainant. On 16.08.2014, the estimation has been given to the complainant. The opposite parties sent reminder notices on 16.10.2014 and on 26.12.2014.         

5. There was no communication from the complainant neither by phone nor in-person till the final reminder letter sent to the complainant by the opposite parties on 26.12.2014. The opposite parties requested the complainant to take back the above said vehicle form the service centre. But the complainant failed to respond. After repeated reminder, the officials of the opposite parties served a notice on 26.12.2014 upon the complainant requesting her to take delivery of he said vehicle after paying the sum of Rs.31,750/- towards garage  rent/parking charges. But the complainant never turned up.  Only in order to escape from her legal liability, the complainant sent a notice on 21.01.2015 after the demand notice dated 26.12.2014, sent by the 1^st opposite party. Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          On 13.08.2014 the complainant informed this opposite party that her vehicle TN 05 AS 8176, which stood insured with this opposite party, met with an accident in the early hours on that day and lodged her claim. Immediately this opposite party appointed Sri.Deenadayalan, Insurance Surveyor/Loan Assessor for making an on-the-spot preliminary survey of the damaged-vehicle. Immediately the said surveyor went to the accident spot and inspected the vehicle. He noted down the damages sustained by the vehicle and its visibility damaged parts and submitted his report in this regard to this opposite party. The complainant had shifted the damaged-vehicle to the work shop of the 2^nd opposite party. She submitted the Estimate dated 16.08.2014 given by the 2^nd opposite party. Immediately this opposite party appointed Sri.N.Suryakumar, Surveyor and Loan Assessor, for making a final survey of the subject-vehicle. The said surveyor visited the 2^nd opposite party’s workshop soon and conducted survey of the damaged vehicle. The original estimate given by the 2^nd opposite party was for Rs.4,99,200/-. After discussions with the officials of the 2^nd opposite party, the surveyor revised the assessment to Rs.4,43,889.00 and gave approval for repair. The 2^nd opposite party was asked to proceed with the repairs and to submit their repair bills to the 3^rd opposite party.

          7. Thereafter what happened between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party is not known to this opposite party. It appears that the 2^nd opposite party were in the  process of closing down their business. They did not carry out the repair. So, they asked the complainant to take back her vehicle. The complainant felt aggrieved with the conduct of the 2^nd opposite party. This opposite party learnt the above facts only subsequently. Their surveyor Mr.Suryakumar has mentioned the above facts in his survey report dated 28.03.2015. The grievance of the complainant is only against the opposite parties 1&2.  Her complaint is directed   against them and not against this opposite party.  Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

9. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle lorry bearing registration No. TN 05 A8176 and the said vehicle was met with an accident on 13.08.2014 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are carrying on service and repair work and at request of the 1^st opposite party the complainant left the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party for service and the accident was also informed to the 3^rd opposite party who is the insurer of the vehicle and the 2^nd opposite party took inventory of the vehicle in Ex.B1 and also gave estimate of repair Ex.B2 dated 16.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,99,200/-and the complainant submitted Ex.B7 claim form to the 3^rd opposite party and based on that the 3^rd opposite party appointed Mr.R.Deenadayalan as spot surveyor and he surveyed the spot and submitted Ex.B8 report and the 3^rd opposite party again appointed N.Suryakumar insurance surveyor to check the vehicle and he inspected and submitted Ex.B10 report to the 3^rd opposite party.

          10. The complainant would contend that the 3^rd opposite party/insurer agreed to bear the repair charges and even after that the 2^nd opposite party has not repaired the vehicle and because of that the complainant asked the opposite parties 1 & 2  to repair the vehicle and to deliver to him and he also wrote Ex.A1 letter 09.01.2015 and even after that the vehicle was not repaired and delivered to him and therefore the complainant could not carry on his business and consequently he was unable to pay EMIs and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          11. The opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that  after receiving estimation from the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant has not approved the same and consequently they were unable to repair the vehicle and even after writing Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 letters to the complainant to take back the vehicle in the year 2014 itself, the complainant has not come forward either gave consent for repair the vehicle or taken delivery of the vehicle and further the complainant had sent Ex.A1 letter  to them only after these letters and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service.

          12. Admittedly the complainant left the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party in August 2014 and the 2^nd opposite party gave Ex.B2 estimation for repair on 16.08.2014. The complainant specific case is that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not repaired the vehicle and delivered to him. The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically pleaded in that written version that the complainant has not approved the estimation for repair given to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party sent Ex.B3 letter dated 16.10.2014 to the complainant that the jobs were not approved at your end and hence take back the vehicle by 25.10.2014 and similar letter Ex.B4 dated 26.12.2014 was also sent to him. Even after such letters the complainant has not approved the estimation for repair. The specific plea taken by the opposite parties 1 &2 in their written version was not denied by the complainant. Till December 2014 the complainant has not written any letter to the opposite parties. After Ex.B4 only the complainant sent Ex.A1 letter dated 09.01.2015 to the opposite parties that they have not attended the repairs. Nowhere, the complainant stated that he had approved the estimate for repair either before or after receipt of Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 letters from the opposite parties. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not approved the repair estimate issued by the 2^nd opposite party to him. Without approval the complainant cannot expect to carry out the repairs by the opposite parties. Therefore, it is held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service.

          13. The 3^rd opposite party specifically pleaded in the written version that he had appointed surveyor to inspect accident spot as well as vehicle and after inspection they have also submitted their report. He further pleaded that the 2^nd opposite party was asked to carry out the repairs and to submit repair bills to process the claim. However, he had not received any bills or reply from the 2^nd opposite party or from the complainant. Without receipt of bills, the insurance company cannot make payment on the claim made by the complainant. Since, no proper claim made to him by the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party could not process the claim and therefore it is held that the 3^rd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.     

14. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd  day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.01.2015                   Letter sent by Complainant to Opposite party.

Ex.A2 dated 26.12.2014                   Letter sent by Opposite party.

Ex.A3 dated 21.01.2015                   Legal notice with A.D. cards.

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Motor Claim Form.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st&2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 14.08.2014                   Inventory checklist.

 

Ex.B2 dated 16.08.2014                   Estimation.

 

Ex.B3 dated 16.10.2014                   Notice sent by us to the complainant.

 

Ex.B4 dated 26.12.2014                   Notice sent by us to the complainant

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Letter of Authorization.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B6 dated 10.08.2017                   Proof affidavit filed on behalf of III opposite party.

 

Ex.B7 dated 13.08.2014                   Claim Letter and Claim Form submitted by the

                                                     complainant to opposite party-III

 

Ex.B8 dated 25.08.2014                   Spot survey report given by R.Deenadayalan,

                                                     Insurance Surveyor/Loss Assessor.

 

Ex.B9 dated 16.08.2014                   Estimate given by Act India (Opposite party-III)

 

Ex.B10 dated 24.11.2014                 Letter written by Sri.N.Suryakumar, Insurance

                                                    Surveyor and Loan Assessor to the Complainant

                                                    along with the returned cover.

 

Ex.B11 dated 20.01.2015                Letter written by the Complainant to Opposite

                                                   party-II with copy marked to Opposite party-II  and

                                                 cover through which it has been received.

 

Ex.B12 dated 28.03.2015               Final Survey Report submitted by                                               

                                                  Sri.N.Suryakumar, Insurance Surveyor and Loan

                                                  Assessor.

 

Ex.B13 dated 23.04.2015               Letter Written by Opposite party-III to the

                                                  Complainant.

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT