DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th day of February 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 16/01/2010

(C.C.No. 7/2010)

Rajesh P

S/o.P.Vasudevan

8/350, “Sreyas”

Kallekulangara Post, Palakkad - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Venugopal)

V/s

1.National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Div.No.10, Flat No.101-10 6, N-1

BMC House, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110 001

Rep.by its General Manager

(By Adv.A.R.V.Sankar)

2. Indus Motor Co. (P) Ltd.

Opp.South Gate of Shipyard

M.G.Road, Cochin – 15

Rep.by its General Manager

(By Adv.C.K.Bhaskaran) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant has purchased a Maruthi alto Std. BS III car from 2^nd opposite party on 30/12/2007 and insured with 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party as authorized agent as the package policy No.3375372 dated 29/12/2007. On 18/1/2008, the car was handed over to the Palakkad service center of the 2^nd opposite party and the vehicle was returned on the same day evening after first service. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to renew the insurance policy on the third week of December 2008. The 2^nd opposite party denied the no claim bonus, which is normally the complainant is entitled and stated that the complainant has already claimed insurance amount of Rs.9438/- as painting charges on bill dated 23/1/2008. The complainant submitted that no painting work was done on his vehicle on 18/1/2008 or 23/1/08 or any other day. When the complainant objected and questioned this 2^nd opposite party has agreed to repay the amount and No Claim Bonus amount. Even after repeated demands they have not repaid the same. There after the complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 26/8/09. After receipt of lawyer notice 1^st opposite party has neither paid the amount nor replied. 2^nd opposite party contacted the complainant and assured repayment. But till date no repayment is made. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and malpractice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1. Pay the no claim bonus amount entitled on the insurance policy of the complainant

2. Repay Rs.9438/- the amount illegally taken by them raising a false claim

3. Pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for doing malpractice and mental agony

4. Pay the cost of the proceedings

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.

1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had taken a Motor Package Policy covering the vehicle Maruti Alto bearing engine No.F8DN4217180 and chassis no.1069580 for the period from 29/12/2007 to 28/12/2008. A claim was reported to the company on 18/1/2008 of the vehicle by the 2^nd opposite party and the company had deputed a surveyor Mr. Unnikrishnan to ascertain the cause of loss and assess the damage. 1^st opposite party stated that the surveyor has verified the original RC of the vehicle and the driving license of the driver at the time of the accident as per the claim intimation letter and claim form. The 1^st opposite party stated that as per the claim intimation and claim form a jeep hit the rear side of the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.KL-9V-8104 and a goods auto scratched. 1^st opposite party stated that the company processed the claim and sanctioned for Rs.8935/- and issued the cheque in favour of the 2^nd opposite party. The claim settlement was in accordance with law and MOU with the Maruthi Insurance Brokers Ltd. The 1^st opposite party stated that at the time of accident complainant's friend shaji was driving the vehicle and it was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party for repairs and after painting it was returned to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party denied that the vehicle has not met with any accident as contented in the complaint. The company had paid the amount to the 2^nd opposite party as per the voucher given by him.

The 2^nd opposite party stated that Maruti Alto car owned in the name of the complainant bearing Registration No.KL-9-V-8104 was insured with the 1^st opposite party. Further, 2^nd opposite party stated that the vehicle was brought to workshop at Palakkad for body repair works on 18/1/2008 and after repairing and painting the vehicle was released on 23/1/08. The 1^st opposite party has released Rs.9438/- for the repairing and painting of the vehicle. The 2^nd opposite party denied that on 18/1/2008 the car was handed over to the Palakkad Service Center of opposite party No.2 and on the same day evening the vehicle was returned to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party stated that the vehicle was brought to workshop for first service only on 1/02/2008. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and no unfair trade practice is committed by the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed affidavits and documents Ext.A1. marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 to B7 marked on the side of opposite parties. Witness on the side of the complainant was examined.

Issues to be considered are

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

2. If so what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?

Issue I & II

We perused relevant documents on record. According to Ext.A1 complainant has sent lawyer notice to opposite parties. The complainant stated that he has purchased a Maruti Alto car from 2^nd opposite party on 30/12/2007. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the vehicle was brought to their workshop at Palakkad for body repair works on 18/1/2008 and after, repairing and painting the vehicle was released on 23/1/2008. No evidence was produced by 2^nd opposite party to show the vehicle was brought to their workshop and released on 23/1/2008. Normally the repairing works and services of the vehicle was noted in the service register of the 2^nd opposite party. In the present case the 2^nd opposite party has not produced service register or bills. Further 2^nd opposite party admitted that a Maruti Alto car owned in the name of the complainant bearing Registration No.KL-9V-8104 was insured with the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had taken a Motor Package Policy covering his vehicle Maruti Alto bearing Engine No.F8DN4217180 and chassis No.1069580 for the period 29/12/07 to 28/12/08. Further 1^st opposite party stated that the company had deputed a surveyor Mr.Unnikrishnan to ascertain the cause of loss and assess the damage. But the opposite parties has not examined the surveyor as a witness to prove the assessment of loss. The signature of the complainant in Ext.B2 is different from the signature of the complainant in complaint, affidavit and vakkalath. The complainant has filed I.A.256/10 to send documents signed by him to hand writing expert. No counter was filed by opposite parties and hence I.A. allowed. But no steps was taken by the complainant. Thereafter complainant has filed an application 355/10 for issuing summons to witness. The name and address of the witness was C.P. Hiltho Shaji. Chemmanur House., Thottingal, Nurani, Palakkad. According to Ext.B5 the driving license was in the name of C.P.Hiltho Shaji. At the time of examination of Hiltho Shaji stated that he was worked in Indus Motors in sales department from 2003 June to July 2008. He has not driven the Alto car or not happened any accident. Also he stated that at the time of working in 2^nd opposite party company the copy of certificate and license was given to them. The counsel of 2^nd opposite party shows Ext.B5 to the witness and admitted by him. The signature of the complainant in Ext.B5 is different from the signature in vakkalath, complaint and affidavit. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite parties. In Ext.B1, 6 photos are attached. The 1^st opposite party stated that on 16/1/08 at 4 p.m an accident was happened between the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.KL9-V-8104 and a goods auto. Ext.B4 copy of certificate of Registration shows that the complainant has purchased the Maruti Alto car on 29/12/2007. The Ext.B1, in the 2^nd photo the fingers are seen at the side of number of the vehicle. So the number of the vehicle was written and shows in place of the number plate and photos are taken. The opposite party has not cross examined the complainant to prove the details of number plate attached to the car. The signature of the complainant in the documents produced by the 1^st opposite party was different from the signature of the complainant in the Vakkalath, complaint and affidavit. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show any complaint was registered by the police in the accident. In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has stated that 2^nd opposite party denied the no claim bonus and stated that the complainant has already claimed insurance amount of Rs.9438/- as painting charges. It is a fit case for awarding compensation. The 1^st opposite party stated that the surveyor Mr.Unnikrishnan verified the original R.C. Of the vehicle and the driving license of the driver. But the complainant has denied his signature in the documents produced by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to prove the complainant has signed these documents. Also the photos attached to Ext.B1 the fingers are seen at the side of the place of number plate of the Maruti. The 1^st opposite party stated that Insurance amount was paid to the 2^nd opposite party. But the 2^nd opposite party has not denied the payment of insurance amount. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the insurance amount was paid to the complainant. No evidence was produced by the 2^nd opposite party to show the insurance amount was paid to the complainant. As the complexities of life, trade and commerce are growing, the need for insurance cover is also growing. In the above circumstances, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of company or service provider is not excusable. So both opposite parties jointly committing unfair trade practice and released the Insurance amount for repairing and painting the vehicle. The complainant stated that no painting work was done on his vehicle. So the complainant is entitled to get the No Claim Bonus. In view of the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties.

Hence the complaint allowed.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant the No Claim Bonus and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied within one month from date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for whole amount with 9% interest from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of February 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 series – True copy of the Lawyer notice dated 26/8/09, sent to the OPs

with postal receipt and akcnowledgment

Exhbits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Surveyor report dated 31/1/08 by Sri.Unnikrishnan

Ext.B2 – Accident information report by Rajesh to National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Palakkad

Ext.B3 – Motor claim form

Ext.B4 – Copy of RC Book of vehicle No.KL-09-V-8104

Ext.B5 – Copy of driving license of E.P.Hiltho Shaji

Ext.B6 – Invoice No.BC07005870 dtd.23/1/08 by Indus Motors P.Ltd, Palakkad

Ext.B7 – Satisfaction voucher pf National Inusrance Co, Ltd. signed by Rajesh

Witness examined by the complainant

PW1 – C.P.Hiltho Shaji

Cost allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.