DATE OF FILING : 28.12.2009 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 29th day of April, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.227/2009 Between Complainant : Joseph S/o John, Arukalil House, Kadallikkadu P.O, Vazhakkulam. (By Adv: K.M.Sanu) And Opposite Parties : 1. Raju Joseph, Administrative Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jyothi Super Bazar, Thodupuzha. (By Advs: Biju Joseph, Joshy George & Berg George) 2. Varghese Mathew, Loss Assessor & Valuer, 2nd Block, Ist Room, Adam Star Buildings, Thodupuzha. By Adv: P.S.Rajesh) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Complainant's son Mr.Thomas Mur is the registered owner of a Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No.KL.8Y.6203. The said vehicle met with an accident at 12 Noon on 16.12.2008 at Thodupuzha- Moolamattom road. After that the vehicle was given for repairing at Sprint Auto Garage, Thodupuzha. In order to assess the loss sustained to the vehicle, the complainant authorised the 2nd opposite party who is an insurance surveyor introduced by the Ist opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as consideration for the same. The opposite party assured to give the report within 2 weeks and he duly inspected the vehicle at the Sprint Auto Garage, Thodupuzha. After 2 weeks the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the report but again he requested time for giving the same. But the report was not issued after repeated requests. After 5 months the opposite party filed false complaint before the Thodupuzha police against the complainant and his son, in order to make delay for giving the report. The complainant spent about Rs.92,000/- for the repairs of the vehicle and paid Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for getting the survey report. So this petition is filed.
2. As per the written version of the Ist opposite party, there is no connection with the Ist opposite party and the alleged owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL.8Y.6203. Before one year the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to insure his vehicle without producing the concerned documents of the vehicle. The opposite party who is working in the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Thodupuzha told that the relevant documents of the vehicle is needed for insuring the vehicle. The Ist opposite party never introduced the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. The complainant never approached the Ist opposite party to get a survey report for his damaged vehicle. So there is no transaction or consumer relation between the complainant and the Ist opposite party. The petition is filed only because the Ist opposite party denied to insure the vehicle of the complainant because of the lack of the relevant documents. 3. As per the written version of the 2nd opposite party, it is stated that the complainant is not the registered owner of the Tata Indica car bearing Reg.No.KL.8Y.6203. The 2nd opposite party duly surveyed the vehicle No.KL.8Y.6203 as per IRDA rules and assessed the damages of the vehicle. The report has issued to the person who approached with the vehicle, not the complainant and also received Rs.1,420/- for the same. After that the complainant and his son approached the 2nd opposite party on 29.04.2009 and requested to increase the valuation for the damages of the report, but the 2nd opposite party denied the same. They offered some amount for the same. But the 2nd opposite party never acted upon that. So the complainant and his son tresspassed in the office of the 2nd opposite party, abused him and brutally manhandled him. The opposite party filed a petition before the Thodupuzha police on 29.04.2009 and the Thodupuzha police registered a crime as No.670/09 under Section 448, 323, 506(1) and 294(b) of IPC against the complainant and his son. The case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, the court granted bail to the complainant and his son. The petition filed by the complainant against the 2nd opposite party was referred by the Thodupuzha police because it was a false complaint. The complainant and his son assaulted the 2nd opposite party only because the 2nd opposite party denied to make correction in the survey report. After that they approached the 2nd opposite party for a compromise talk in order to escape from the criminal case but the 2nd opposite party declined from that. The 2nd opposite party never received any money from the complainant or never offered any service to the complainant. The survey report and its bill were given to the original owner of the vehicle No.KL.8Y.6203. So this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and Exts.R1 to R6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting compensation against the opposite parties for non-issuance of the survey report for the vehicle owned by the complainant and his son which met with an accident. The complainant is examined as PW1. The sale agreement created between the complainant, his son and one Mr.Abdul Jabbar S/o Fakkir, Kottavathukkal House, Vengalloor is produced and marked as Ext.P1. A bus bearing Reg.No.KL.38.2952 hit on the vehicle of PW1. At that time the son of the complainant was the driver of the vehicle. Ext.P2 is the copy of the RC book of the vehicle in which Thomas Mur Joseph who is the registered owner of the vehicle. Ext.P3 is the FIR from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha as FIR No.1596 under Section 279 IPC for the accident of the vehicle. The complainant spent Rs.92,000/- for the repair of the vehicle and approached the 2nd opposite party for preparing a survey report for the same. The Ist opposite party introduced the 2nd opposite party. As per cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, PW1 deposed that he never made application before the RTO to change the name of the vehicle within 30 days of the Ext.P1 agreement. The insurance of the vehicle was expired before 5 days of the accident. There is no relationship with the insurance company and PW1. PW1 entrusted the 2nd opposite party for preparing the survey report. PW2 is a witness deposed that PW1 paid Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for getting the survey report of the vehicle. The amount was given to the 2nd opposite party in front of the Jyothi Super Bazar, Thodupuzha. He never witnessed the transaction, the matter was told by the PW1 to PW2. PW2 is a real estate business man and knows PW1 for the last 12 years. He is an accused in several cases. PW3 who approached the office of the 2nd opposite party for talking about the survey report as per the instruction of the PW1. The opposite party requested some more time for issuing the survey report but PW1 demanded the same on that day itself, because already 4 months time has been elapsed. The 2nd opposite party told that the report or the amount will be given within one week. As per the cross examination for the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW3 deposed that he is a friend of the PW1 for several years. DW1 who is the Administrative Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Thodupuzha. The matter was known to DW1 only after receiving the notice from the Forum. He never introduced 2nd opposite party to the complainant. The complainant approached DW1 for paying the insurance premium of the vehicle. 7. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW2. The survey report prepared by DW2 is marked as R2. After issuing the survey report the complainant and his son approached the DW2 and requested to make correction in the survey report but it was denied by DW2. So they brutally assaulted the DW2. A crime was registered by the Thodupuzha police and copy of the FIR is marked as Ext.R3. Ext.R5 is the copy of the charge from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. The wound certificate from the doctor is marked as Ext.R6. Name of DW2 is included in the panel of the insurance surveyors of the Ist opposite party. DW2 inspected the vehicle in question. An amount of Rs.1,420/- is received for the same. But the person approached for making the survey report was one Mr.Thomas and his address in the RC Book is Veluppadam at Thrissur district. The survey report was also given to him. The vehicle was serviced at Sprint Auto Garage, Vengalloor and estimate was also received from the Sprint Auto Garage. It was in December 2008. The RC Book also showed to DW2 at that time.
As per PW1, his son is the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL.8Y.6203 which met with an accident. Ext.P2 is the copy of the RC Book produced, in which the name of the registered owner of the vehicle is written as Thomas Mure, Arukalil House, Muvattupuzha with effect from 7.01.2009. The vehicle was met with an accident on 16.12.2008 at Thodupuzha. As per Ext.R1, copy of the motor vehicle inspection report, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle is written as Thomas, Puthenpurackal, Veluppadam, Thrissur. So it means that the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident was one Thomas and not the son of the complainant Thomas Mure. DW2 admitted that he received some amount Rs.1,420/- from the said Thomas for preparing the survey report for the damages sustained to the vehicle. The report was prepared by him, supplied to the said Thomas and that report is marked as Ext.R2. As per the report also the registered owner of the vehicle is Thomas, Puthenpurackal in Thrissur district and not the son of the complainant. The complainant produced an agreement which is Ext.P1 in which the complainant and his son purchased the vehicle from one Thankamaniyamma W/o Mukundan Menon at Thrissur. Copy of the RC book produced here and the report of the AMV never reveals the same. So it means that the complainant changed his ownership after the accident of the vehicle because Ext.P2 shows that the vehicle is in the name of the complainant's son with effect from 7.01.2009. As per PW1, he paid Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party for preparing the survey report, but the survey report was not given to him. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that he paid Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. PW2 is a friend of the complainant who knows the complainant for the last 12 years. He deposed that he is aware of the matter but it is only a hearsay. PW3 is also a friend of PW1. He also visited the office of the 2nd opposite party in discussion with the report but he never witnessed the payment of Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that DW1 introduced DW2. But there is no evidence to show the same. As per DW2, the complainant and his son approached them for making correction in the survey report and when he denied the same, they brutally assaulted DW2. Ext.R5 is the charge sheet filed by the Thodupuzha Police before the JFCM Court, Thodupuzha as CC No.661/09 under Section 448, 323, 506(1) and 294(b) of IPC, in which the complainant and his son are the accused. That is not challenged by the opposite parties. The police has referred the complaint filed by the complainant against the 2nd opposite party. That is also not challenged by the complainant. Ext.R3 is the FIR and witness statements filed by the Thodupuzha police for the same. Ext.R6, wound certificate also produced. So we think that there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that he paid Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd opposite party to get the survey report of the vehicle. So there is no consideration received by the 2nd opposite party from the complainant. Ext.R3 shows that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of DW2. The complainant never produced any evidence from the workshop owner or witness in the Ext.P1 agreement to substantiate his claim. So we think that there is no deficiency is proved against the opposite parties. Hence the petition dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2010 Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Joseph S/o John PW2 - P.S.Assis PW3 - Salim On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Raju Joseph DW2 - Varghese Mathew Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Sale agreement dated 15.10.2008 created between the complainant, his son and one Mr.Abdul Jabbar, Vengalloor Ext.P2 - Photocopy of RC Book Ext.P3 - Photocopy of FIR No.1596 dated 16.12.2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thoudpuzha On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ext.R2 - Motor Survey Report prepared by the 2nd opposite party Ext.R3 - Photocopy of FIR dated 29.04.2009 as Crime No.607/09 Ext.R4 - Statement of the witnesses Ext.R5 - Photocopy of Charge Sheet filed by the Thodupuzha Police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thoudpuzha as CC NO.661/09 Ext.R6 - Photocopy of Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate
| | HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, Member | HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member | | 
