By Sri. A. A. Vijayan, President
The complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
1. The dispute is in respect of refund of insurance amount. The averments in the complaint can be summarized is as follows:-
The vehicle No.KL10-AE-5768 belongs to complainant and that vehicle had been insured with opposite party. The policy taken by the complainant was Bumber to Bumber policy and that was taken when he was made believe by the opposite party that if such policy is taken the complainant has to pay only Rs.2,000/- for repairing of the vehicle when it is involved in the accident and the complete repairing charge would be borne by the opposite party and till the vehicle gets ready for operation after repairing alternative arrangement would be made by the opposite party for the travel of the complainant. Believing the promise made by the opposite party the complainant took Bumber to Bumber policy for his vehicle. On 02-02-2015 the vehicle met with an accident and when the opposite party was intimated they directed the complainant to repair the vehicle in any local workshop and if it is given in authorized workshop more amount will be levied by them. But on the advise of his friends he produced the vehicle in an authorized workshop for repair and that was intimated to the opposite party. Then surveyor of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and the vehicle was repaired on 09-03-2015 and the complainant paid the repairing charge which came to Rs.2,51,049/-. The bills related to the repair were delivered to the opposite party. Then, inspite of repeated enquiry the complainant did not get back the amount from the opposite party spent by complainant for repairing the vehicle. Atlast on 20-05-2015 only Rs.2,34,600/- was allowed by the opposite party. Thereafter complainant sent a letter to opposite party seeking the reasons for not paying the actual amount paid by the complainant for repairing the vehicle. To that letter reply was received by complainant on 24-06-2015. But no satisfactory explanation was there in the reply letter. Even the surveyor was not able to give explanation for not showing the actual repairing charge in his report. After promising that if Bumber to Bumber policy is taken when the vehicle is involved in any accident the entire repairing charge will be borne by the opposite party, when the accident really occurred, they turned back and appeared to be reluctant in paying the entire repairing charge and that shows the deficiency of their service. Moreover from higher rate of premium was realized from the complainant by the opposite party. So the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.16,449/- towards repairing charge and Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.75,000/- as the financial loss sustained by the complainant.
2. The opposite party filed version disputing the claim of complainant as follows:-
It is true that a policy was given to complainant when he approached the opposite party for a policy for his vehicle. The policy was valid for one year ie., 05-03-2014 to 04-03-2015. It is also true that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 02-02-2015 and that was reported by the complainant and on his request this opposite party sent a surveyor and loss assessor to inspect the vehicle. On the basis of the report of the surveyor the opposite party paid Rs.2,34,600/- to the complainant for repairing the vehicle on 20-05-2015 and a discharge voucher is also executed by complainant at the time of receipt of the amount for full and final settlement of the claim. Since surveyor and loss assessor is not impleaded as party in this case the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The claim of the complainant for Rs.98,949/- is baseless. This false complaint is filed by complainant to wreck vengeance against the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and thus complaint is to be dismissed.
3. Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. Points arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
(ii) Relief and costs.
5. Point No.(i):-
Admittedly complainant had taken a Private Car Package Policy for his vehicle which is marked as Ext.B1. Admittedly the vehicle met with an accident on 02-02-2015. On getting intimation from the complainant the opposite party sent their surveyor for inspection of the vehicle to assess the damages and Ext.B2 is the report of the surveyor. As per the assessment made by the surveyor the liability of the insurance company to complainant was Rs.2,34,640.56. At the same time the authroized workshop where in the vehicle was repaired assessed the cost of repairing at Rs.2,51,049/-. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the workshop to complainant for payment of the amount calculated for repairing. As per Ext.A2 the total amount to be spent by the complainant for repairing the vehicle is Rs.2,51,049/- and this amount is seen spent by complainant as seen from Ext.A1, the receipt. As per the survey report the total amount required for the repairing of the vehicle(including the cost of spare parts and labour charge) is Rs.2,41,640/- But the opposite party deducted Rs.5,000/- under the head of salvage value. But the basis for fixing the salvage value at Rs.5,000/- is not explained by the surveyor. Without any solid basis the deduction of Rs.5,000/- from the amount to be paid to the complainant cannot be justified. Similarly the amount shown by surveyor for painting was Rs.22,998/-. But the company has shown Rs.27,450/-. The amount shown by the company in Ext.A2 represents the actual amount to be paid by the complainant. There is no evidence to show that the amount shown by the company in Ext.A2 for repairing the vehicle is excessive. Therefore we find that the amount shown by the complainant in Ext.A2 is the real amount to be spent by complainant for repairing the vehicle. On the basis of a mere report of the surveyor deduction of any amount from the actual amount to be paid by the complainant to the workshop cannot be justified. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled to the amount shown in Ext.A1 and Ext.A2.
6. The fact that the opposite party failed to pay the actual amount spent by the complainant for repairing the vehicle as seen in Ext.A1 amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and thus the opposite partt is liable to pay compensation to complainant. Point is decided accordingly.
7. Point No.(ii):-
On the basis of the findings on the above points we find that the complainant is entitled to the amount shown in Ext.A1 from the opposite party which is spent by him for repairing the vehicle. The amount shown in Ext.A1 is Rs.2,51,049/-. The amount offered by the opposite party on the basis of Ext.B2 report of the surveyor is Rs.2,34,640/-. Therefore the complainant is entitled to Rs.16,409/-(Rupees Sixteen thousand, four hundred and nine only) which is withheld by the opposite party and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Thus the total amount to which complainant is entitled from the opposite party is Rs.36,409/-(Rupees Thirty six thousand, four hundred and nine only). This amount shall be paid by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall pay it with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2016.
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Exts.A1 to A3
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Receipt dated, 09-03-2015 for Rs.2,51,049/-
by Amana Toyota VPK Motors (P) Ltd, Malappuram to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the bill dated, 09-03-2015 by Amana Toyota VPK Motors (P) Ltd, Malappuram to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Private Car Package Policy issued by opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Exts.B1 to B3
Ext.B1 : Private Car Package Policy issued by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.B2 : Re-inspection report with photographs dated, 01-04-2015
prepared by M. Ashraf, Insurance Surveyor.
Ext.B3 : Discharge Voucher dated, 18-05-2015 from complainant to opposite party.
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
