Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.

                   2. The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:  The complainant is the owner of Tata Winger car having Reg. No. KL 03X-7183.  He insured the aforesaid vehicle in the 1^st opposite party as per policy No. 570603/31/14/6300021632 issued on 28.02.2015 and its validity would be expired on 27.02.2016.  According to him, the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.06.2015 and the vehicle sustained heavy damages.  The accident is reported before the Kilimanoor Police Station and G.D entry is also at the said station.  Apart all the damages of the vehicle an electric post of the electricity board was damage and an amount of Rs. 23,058/- was also remitted to K.S.E.B for this purpose.  On 07.07.2015 as per the instruction from the 1^st opposite party the vehicle was taken to 3^rd opposite party workshop for repair and the 2^nd opposite party had been sent to survey the damages sustained by the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party prepared an estimate of Rs.4,72,635/- for this purpose.  The complainant further stated that, though the estimate was given, the 2^nd opposite party purposefully delayed giving report to the 1^st opposite party for unknown reason.  At this time the 3^rd opposite party inform the complainant that, the repairing of the damaged Body Shell is not possible due to technical reasons and 3^rd opposite party recommended for a replacement of cabin shell.  Anyway, the 2^nd opposite party was not agreed with the suggestion and the complainant alleges that the 2^nd opposite party has taken this stand in order to get bribe from the complainant.  According to the complainant, he purchased this vehicle for his lively bread and butter and he would like to use this car for taxi purposes.  The vehicle is under hypothecation of monthly payment of Rs.24,095/- is to be paid by the complainant.  According to him, due to the act of the opposite parties there is a dues of 8 installments was happened and he is facing crucial financial crisis.  On 09.09.2015 the complainant issued a legal notice to all the opposite parties.  Though all the opposite parties are received the letter they failed to redress grievances of the complainant.  Hence the complainant files this complaint for getting relief against the opposite parties.

                    3. This Forum entertains the complaint and issue notices to all the opposite parties.  All the opposite parties are appeared before the Forum but even though the Forum granted sufficient time to 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party for filing their version.  They failed to file their version and at last on 12.02.2016 the case posted for the evidence of both side.  In pursuance of the notice 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows.  According to the 3^rd opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   He submitted that, the complainant produced the vehicle for repairment in to 3^rd opposite party’s workshop on 08.07.2015.  The vehicle sustained heavy damages and suggested for the replacement of the body shell.  The 3^rd opposite party demanded for an advance payment for commencing the work.  According to this opposite party, the complainant used this vehicle for flourishing   his business and same is used for enhancing the profit.  He again stated that, the complainant failed to provide advance amount i.e., what the complainant did not commence the repairment work on the vehicle.  According to him, he is entitled for demurrage charges from the complainant.  He again stated that, there is no cause of action arise against the 3^rd opposite party as alleged by the complainant and this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this opposite party requested this Forum to dismiss the above complaint by granting compensatory cost of this opposite party.

                     4. On the basis of the above pleadings of both parties and records before the Forum, we raised the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency

 in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant?

3. Regarding the relief and costs?

            5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A10.  Ext A1  is the copy of R.C book of KL 3X – 7183 dated 28.02.2014, Ext. A2 is the copy of Insurance Policy Certificate dated 28.02.2015 from 1^st opposite party, Ext.A3 is the copy of G.D extracts from Kilimanoor Police Station dated 07.07.2015, Ext.A4 is the copy of cash receipt from Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Vamanapuram dated 07.07.2015, Ext.A5 is the copy of estimate dated 09.07.2015 from 3^rd opposite party, Ext. A6 is the  copy of legal notice send to the opposite party dated 09.09.2015, Ext.A7 series are the postal receipts dated 10.09.2015, Ext.A8 series are the postal Acknowledgment cards, Ext.A9 is a letter send by the 2^nd opposite party and Ext.A10 is a letter send by the 3^rd opposite party.  On the other side, no oral evidence or documentary evidence is adduced at the time of trial.  The chief affidavit of PW1 is more or less as per the tunes of the complaint.  In order to substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant produced the exhibits referred above as Ext.A1 to A10.  PW1 deposed that, he is a consumer of 1^st opposite party to 3^rd opposite party and as per Ext.A2 the 1^st opposite party is responsible to cover the insurance risk of PW1.  As per Ext.A2 it reveals that, PW1 is having a valid insurance at the time of the incident and in order to prove the incident the G.D entry (Ext.A3) from the Kilimanoor Police Station is also produced.  The Ext.A4 reveals that the complainant remitted Rs. 23,058/-to K.S.E.B Vamanapuram Section as the compensation of damaged electric post.  It is true that, the 2^nd opposite party prepared an estimate of Rs.4,72,635/- for the repairment of the damaged vehicle of PW1.  It is to see that, this Ext.A5 is only for necessary repairment of vehicle and not for repairment of any part of the vehicle.  Aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties it is to see that, the complainant issued a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 09.09.2015 and it is to see that, the 2^nd opposite party issued a letter stating that, he has given consent for the repairment work and according to him, a replacement was not warranted.  These facts can be revealed through Ext.A9 reply letter to 2^nd opposite party.  At the same time the 3^rd opposite party was also issued a letter to the complainant, which is marked as Ext.A10, which is insisting for a replacement of body shell on technical reason.  The evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 is unchallengeable as far as the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party are concerned.  At the same time 3^rd opposite party filed version and cross examined PW1 at the time of trial.  When we examine the cross examination of 3^rd opposite party it reveals that, complainant doesn’t want any relief from 3^rd opposite party.  According to PW1 at present the vehicle is at 1^st opposite parties’ workshop hence he was made a party for this proceedings.

           6. Point No. 1 to 3 : For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No.1 to 3 together.  In the light of evidence adduced by PW1 in this case it reveals that, the complainant is a consumer of 1^st opposite party to 3^rd opposite party. Point No.1 found accordingly.  Next question to be considered is whether 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are committed any deficiency in services as pointed out by PW1.  The evidence adduced by PW1 with regard to the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, it is seen that the evidence before us are  unchallenged and more over we can safely come to a conclusion that the PW1 has taken earnest attempt to prove his case.  It is proved that, at present the vehicle is entrusted to 3^rd opposite parties’ workshop for curing the damages.  When we peruse the version of 3^rd opposite party it reveals that, due to technical reason a replacement of certain parts are inevitable, so that the maintenance report of 2^nd opposite party as per Ext.A5 has to be discarded.  It is true that, PW1 entrusted the vehicle to 3^rd opposite party as per the instruction of 1^st opposite party.  When we consider these facts the responsibility of 1^st opposite party as an insurer of this insured is so high and it is the duty of 1^st opposite party to prepare an estimate and he should have given proper instruction to 3^rd opposite party for its repairment. Here it is to see that, 1^st opposite party is totally failed to discharge his insurable liability.  When we consider the responsibility of 2^nd opposite party his attitude towards the complainant is also doubtful.  We do admit that he prepared an estimate as per the Ext.A5.  But when we consider Ext.A10 letter of 3^rd opposite party the genuineness of Ext.A5 estimate is also become doubtful.  The complainant in this case is clearly proved that, he is doing taxi service with his vehicle and the earning from the taxi service is the only bread and butter for his life.  In the light of the above evidences we found that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party committed grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence it is clear that allegation raised against 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also proved.  The 3^rd opposite party is exonerated from all the charges alleged by the complainant.

          7.  In the result, we passed the following orders:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay total cost for replacement of body shell of Tata Winger bearing Engine No. 483DLTC55GWY706543 Chassis No.MAT460081DUG04061 (Register No. KL 03X-7183) within one month of the receipt of this order.

2. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within one month of the receipt of the order.  If he fails to comply this order 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay the said amount with 10% interest from the date of this petition onwards (22.09.2015).

3. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.23,058/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand and fifty eight only), which was paid to the K.S.E.B, with an interest of 10% from the date of this petition onwards (22.09.2015).  1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.
4. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with an interest of 10% from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of February, 2016.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                           (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member –I)             :        (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)               :        (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Anil. K.S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  Photocopy of R.C book of KL 3X–7183 dated 28.02.2014.

A2  :  Photocopy of Insurance Policy Certificate dated 28.02.2015

         from 1^st opposite party.

A3  :  Photocopy of G.D extracts of Kilimanoor Police Station dated 07.07.2015.

A4 :   Photocopy of cash receipt dated 07.07.2015 for Rs.23,058/- from

         Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Vamanapuram. 

A5 :   Photocopy of estimate dated 09.07.2015 from 3^rd opposite party.

A6 :   Photocopy of legal notices send by the complainant’s advocate

         to the opposite parties dated 09.09.2015.

A7 series  :  Postal receipts dated 10.09.2015.

A8 series  : Postal Acknowledgment cards.

A9 :  Letter dated 09.09.2015 send by the 2^nd opposite party

        to the complainant.

A10 : Letter dated 15.09.2015 send by the 3^rd opposite party

         to the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Anil K.S, Kochukarimpil House, Mundukottakkal P.O,

          Pathanamthitta.

2.  The Manager, National Insurance Co.,

          1^st Floor, Ennakkattil Estate, Near KSRTC Bus stand, P.B No.37,

          Thiruvalla – Pathanamthitta, Pin - 689 101.

3. M. Muraleedharan Nair, Vehicle Surveyor, National Insurance Co.,

1^st Floor, Ennakkattil Estate, Near KSRTC Bus stand, P.B No.37,

Thiruvalla – Pathanamthitta, Pin - 689 101.

     (4) Manager, Popular Mega Motors India Ltd., Simis Garden,

          NH bypass Road, Muttathara, Manacadu P.O,

          Trivandrum – 695 008.

     (5) The Stock File.