Complaints filed on: 17-08-2022
Disposed on: 24-03-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MARCH 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
CC.No.122/2022
Sri. H.R.Nagaraju S/o Sri.Rangaramanna,
No.969, Sri.Venkateswara Krupa, Netaji Park
Road, 2nd Block, Kuvempu Nagara,
Tumakuru-572 103
……….Complainant
(By Sri. Nagabhushanna, Advocate)
V/s
1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance
Company Ltd., Rptd. By its Manager,
Corporate office at Vishranthi Melaram
Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi,
Salal(OMR), Karapakkam, Cehnnai-600097.
2. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company
Ltd., Reptd by its Branch Manager, Office at
JNR City Center, 3rd Floor, No.30, Behind
IBIS Hotel, Rajaram Mohan Roay Road,
Off Richmond Road, Bengaluru-560 027.
Karnataka.
……….Opposite Party
(OP No.1 – Served, absent)
(OP No..2 by Sri/Smt.Jyothi, Adv.,)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the compensation/damages of Rs.4,86,971.80 plus parking charges along with 15% interest PA from the date of incident together with cost and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant is the owner of the Skoda Laura L and K 2.0 TDI Car(Black Color) bearing No.KA-06-N-3949 and the same was insured with OPs vide policy No.VPC1498259000100. The complainant further contended that as there was heavy rainfall on 17.05.2022, the car parked at his residence was flooded and immediately, he called the authorized service center M/s TAFE ACCESS LTD., body-shop at Bangalore and car was sent to the said service center by towing. Thereafter on 21.05.2022, the body-shop service Advisor Mr.Kareem .Y sent an e-mail to the complainant as well as to the surveyor of the OP No.1 Mr. Binu Chandran seeking for approval to start work.
The complainant further submitted that in response to the mail from complainant, body-shop advisor of Skoda stated that the surveyor of OP No.1 inspected the vehicle and had given work approval for remove of all seats and floor mats and further advisor of Skoda observed that the vehicle flooded above the door sill and as per SKODA guidelines, the estimation has been provided and stated that he need approval of surveyor to start work. It is further case of the complainant hat on 02.06.2022 & 03.06.2022 sent mails to OP No.1 surveyor seeking approval and further needed approval specifically for airbag control unit and gear box mechanism or mechatronics since there is an error in cluster lights and VAS report. For that, the surveyor replied asking to send DTC report in PDF and the same was sent to the surveyor by Mr.Kareem advisor of Skoda along with estimation on 03.06.2022, but there was no response from the surveyor.
It is further case of the complainant that Mr.Kareem .Y and the complainant were sent e-mail to the surveyor of OP No.1 seeking approval for repair and to order the parts by explaining the situation and lying the vehicle in the garage, but the OP No.1 had not responded to the mails for the reason best known to OPs. Thereafter the complainant has sent a mail to Grievance Redressal and the Grievance Redressal has agreed to resolve the problem within 07 days, but so far there is no response from any of OPs. It is further case of the complainant that the complainant once again on 09.07.2022 sent a mail after 53 days of his vehicle lying in the workshop and on 11/07/2022 surveyor of OP No.1 sent a mail stating that there is no error and the vehicle may be taken for test drive and also mail was sent by OP Nos. 1 & 2 stating that they will resolve the problem within a week and to asked to give the vehicle for test drive. Thereafter complainant’s son along with the body-shop repairer, has taken the vehicle for a rest drive on 13.07.2022 and on the test drive the complainant’s son as well as authorized person of OP Nos. 1 & 2 came to know that the same errors and the car even broke-down after the complainant’s son drove it for about 90 kilometers on the NICE road, Bangalore, but the errors were not solved as the OP Nos.1&2 had claimed it to be earlier and same has been intimated to Mr.Kareem and to the surveyor of OP No.1. on 14/07/2022 through e-mail as well as personally. But the surveyor is not ready resolve the problem. The OP No.1 teak did not find out till today what exact problem exists in the vehicle. In-fact the problem is with mechatronics as per the body-shop examination, but for the claims of the Skoda service centre, surveyor of the OP No.1 and his concerned personnel are not ready to accept the claim and to give approval to resolve the insured vehicle’s problem.
The complainant further contended that it is the bounden duty of OPs to resolve the problems that exists in the vehicle, but the OPs failed to do their duties, which amounts to deficiency in service. Due to non resolve of the problem by the OPs and the vehicle lying in the garage, the complainant had to take rented car for his daily need as the complainant is a business man and he need to travel for his business purpose. It is the bounden duty of the OPs 1 & 2 to respond immediately to the complainant’s claims and to resolve the problems immediately but even after two and half months, there is no solution and hence the OPs are liable to pay estimated cost of Rs.1,61,971.80/- towards the full replacement of the affected part on the vehicle, loss of complainant’s brininess, for mental agony of Rs.2,50,000/- and for rental car of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-, in all Rs.4,86,971.80/-. But the OPs did not settle the claim. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 03.08.2022. Even on service of notice, the OPs neither replied nor settled the matter. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. On receipt of notice by this Commission, the OP No.1 remained absent. The OP No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed the version admitting that the car was insured with them accordance with the provisions of the motor vehicle acts and rules and the liability of this OP is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and the policy was valid from 18.08.2021 to 16.08.2021. It is further contended that there was heavy rainfall at the residence of complainant on 17.05.2022 and the complainant’s car was flooded and immediately the complainant called the authorized service center M/s TAFE ACCESS LTD and sent the car to the service center by towing and left the car as per their instructions for inspection on 20.05.2022 with the insurance claim Number PVOO898401, on 21.05.2022 and the advisor has sent e-mail to complainant as well as surveyor. Thereafter the surveyor of OP No.1 inspected the vehicle and had given work approval for removal of all seats and floor mats from the vehicle and to get them cleaned.
The OP No.2 further contended that on 02.06.2022 and 03.06.2022, Mr.Kareem.Y body-ship advisor of the tafe access skoda has sent mails to surveyor of OP No.1 to give approval to start work as per DTC report and estimation copy, in-fact the said Mr.Karim has mentioned in his mail that he needed approval specifically for air bag control unit and gear box mechanism or mechatronics since there is an error in cluster lights and VAS report. AS response to the above mails of Mr.Karim, on 03.06.2022, the surveyor of the OP No.1 sent a reply that the required the DTC report in PDF and with a report from the skoda service center Mr.Kareem sent his report and estimate on 03.06.2022 to the said surveyor of OP No.1. There is no response from the surveyor of OP No.1.
The OP No.2 further submits that they are replied to insurer Mr.Nagaraju H.R. on 18.07.2022 as per vehicle inspected on 20.05.2022 at M/s Tafe Access Ltd., Bangalore, it was observed from the physical inspection of your vehicle being claimed and understood that the vehicle was submerged in water up to floor level due to train and after work completion the vehicle went out for test drive and repairer communicate to them that there has been malfunction found in the mechatronics unit and they have shared a technical report regarding the mechatronics unit and the surveyor visited to the repairer and went out to mechatronics unit is performing well and there is no chance to damage due to water entry and it is not relevant with the cause of accident. The intimation of claim do not corroborate with such damages on the vehicle and hence their liability is restricted to the relevant impact damage only.
The OP No.2 further contended that the OP has not received any request for transfer of the policy either from complainant or from the insured and therefore the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The compensation claimed by the complainant is highly exorbitant, excessive and arbitrary. Hence, on these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of OP No.2, Sri.Purshottam Singhal has filed his affidavit evidence. The complainant has marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C15. The OP No.2 also marked the documents at Ex.R1.
5. On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
6. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:R E A S O N S:
Point Nos. (1) & (2):
7. The admitted facts between the parties are;
- The complainant is the owner of the SKODA Laura L and K 2.0TDI Car bearing registration No.KA:06-N-3949 and the same was insured with the OPs vide policy bearing No.VPC1498259000100. The policy was valid from 18.08.2021 to 16.08.2021.
- There was heavy rainfall on 17.05.2022, the car parked at the residence of complainant was flooded and immediately the complainant called the authorized service centre M/s TAFE ACCESS LTD, and the car was taken to the service centre by towing and thereafter left the car as per the instruction for inspection on 20.05.2022 with the insurance claim No.PU00898401 on 21.05.2022 and the advisor has sent e-mail to complainant as well as surveyor. Thereafter the surveyor of OP No.1 inspected the vehicle and had given work approval for removal of all seats and floor mats from the vehicle and to get them cleaned.
- M/s TAFE ACCESS LTD advisor Mr.Kareem has sent mail on 02.06.2022 and 03.06.2022 to surveyor of OP No.1 to give approval to start work as per DTC report and estimation copy and Mr.Karim has mentioned in his mail that “he needed approval specifically for air bag control unit and gear box mechanism or mechatronics since there is an error in cluster lights and VAS report.
- As response to the above mails of Mr.Karim on 03.06.2022, the surveyor of OP No.1 sent reply and required DTC report PDF and with a report from the SKODA service centre, thereafter, no response from the surveyor of OP No.1.
8. The main allegation of the complainant is that in spite of several requests, there is no response from the surveyor of OP No.1 and the OPs have not settled the claim.
9. The OPs contended that “there is no chance to damage (mechatronics) due to water entry and it is not relevant with the cause of accident and the intimation of claim do not corroborate with such damages on the vehicle. Hence, their liability is restricted to the relevant impact damages only”.
10. From the above allegations and contentions, it is noticed that the complainant’s car Mechatronics/gearbox part damaged. As per complainant averments and evidence, it is damaged due to water entry (flood). But the OPs have stated that there is no chance of such damage due to water entry and it is not relevant with the cause of accident. In this regard, the OPs have not furnished any evidence/expert opinion to prove their case. Mere statement is not enough to establish the case. The OPs have produced surveyor report, but in this report, the loss assessment page is missing. In the absence of expert opinion/report, denying the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, as per actual bills, the OPs are liable to settle the claim of the complainant. The OPs are entitled to obtain the salvage of the replaced part form the complainant/service centre. If complainant is already taken the car from the service centre, then the OPs are entitled to deduct such amount towards the value of the salvage.
11. Further, totally the complainant claimed Rs.4,86,971.80 under the following heads:
1. Repair Estimation - Rs.1,61,971.80
2. Loss of complainant business and mental agony - Rs.2,50,000-00
3. Rental Cars - Rs.50,000-00
4. Litigation Expenses - Rs25,000-00
But the complainant has not furnished any receipts or evidence to show that he incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- for rental cars i.e. (car number, number of days used the car and so on). The complainant also not disclosed the details regarding business loss. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant is entitled to only actual repair cost. As per Ex.C8 to C10, the actual repair cost is Rs.1,51,249. Hence, the complainant is entitled to claim only Rs.1,51,249/- with interest @ 9% PA from the date of complaint to till realization. After receiving the premium, it is the bounden duty of the OPs to settle the claim as per the policy terms and conditions. For the act of OPs, the complainant is compelled to approach this Commission. Hence, the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The complaint is allowed in part.
The OPs are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.1,51,249/- with interest @ 9% PA from the date of complaint to till realization. The OPs are entitled to receive the salvage/deduct the salvage value.
The OPs are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The OPs are further directed to comply the order jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
