D.O.F:19/07/2018
D.O.O:10/12/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.117/2018
Dated this, the 10th day of December 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
P.G Narayanan
S/o. Hebbar aged about 51 years
Sreedurga House Perne Post Kannur (Via) : Complainant
Kumbala 672321
(Adv: Anantharama.P)
And
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kasaragod
Branch Rep: by its Manager
Tiger hills, Muncipal Office Road, Kasaragod
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Registered and Head Office: Opposite Parties
24 whites Road, Chennai, 600014
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
3. Apco vehicles (India) Pvt Ltd. Indiranagar
Post Chengala, Kasaragod Taluk. 671121
(Adv: P.A. Muhammed Ziyad)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended)
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of a Hundai Model 2013 car bearing No - KL 14 - P - 5858. The Vehicle was insured with the opposite party for the period 16 - 1 -2018 to 15-01-2019. On 20-02-2018, at about 3pm, while the Complainant was driving the car towards Seethamgoli a cow suddenly crossed the road, at near Perne Muchilot Temple, and to evade accident, the Complainant tried to take the car to the side, but he lost control and the car ran over a hard rock and the downside of the car got severe damages. The Complainant intimated Opposite Party No. 3 about the accident and the vehicle was taken to their work shop, by towing with another vehicle. The vehicle was repaired from there and the vehicle was handed over to complainant on 28-2-2018 on payment of Rs.13,130/- towards repair charge. But while driving the complainant could not find comfort and on reaching near Kasaragod he heard some noise from the engine, and therefore he returned to the same workshop of Opposite Party No.3, and after thorough check up, the Opposite Party No.3 told that much amount is required and the insurer to be intimated. Accordingly, the Complainant intimated the Opposite Party No.1.
The Opposite Party No.1 engaged a surveyor who inspected the vehicle on 2-3-2018. The surveyor filed Report after a long period on 25-03-2018. There after the complainant's claim was repudiated on the ground that the accident does not come under the purview of the policy. The complainant had to pay Rs.95,921/- to the Opposite Party No. 3., towards repair charge . The repudiation of the insurance claim is service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and 2, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence this complaint is filed with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1, 13,051/-, together with compensation and costs.
The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.3 entered appearance through their respective counsels who filed written Versions.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2, the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious and as such unsustainable at Iaw. It is admitted that the car K L14 P5858 is insured with them. But the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 deny that the car met with any accident and the complainant repaired the car for any damage on account of such an accident. It was the duty of the complainant to inform the police in case of any accident. The surveyor could not note any external damage to the car. If the car had hit against hard rock at least some dent would have been there on the body of the car. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 were denied any opportunity to conduct spot survey. Before removing the Vehicle from the spot or before removing engine the surveyor should have been given opportunity to inspect the vehicle. The vehicle was garaged only for periodical repair on account of usage .There was only changing of oil and related periodical repairs of a 5 year old vehicle falsifies the imaginative story of accident. The car was once taken delivery by making payment of Rs.13,130/- after repair. The car was again garaged and there after intimating the insurer testifies the experimental attempt of the complainant to make unjust gain which is against Iaw. Only the accidental damage and repair come within the purview of policy condition. Expenses of engine work of a 5 year old vehicle is not payable. The survey report alone is the basis for claim settlement. The repudiation is quite legal. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
As per the version of Opposite Party No.3, the complainant is bad for miss joinder of unnecessary parties. The Opposite Party No.3 is unnecessarily been made party in the case .The complainant does not have any grievance regarding the service availed from them. The Opposite Party No.3 admit that the vehicle was taken to their service station in another vehicle after an accident. Up on preliminary inspection, it was found that the oil pan of the Vehicle has been damaged and there was no sufficient oil in the engine .There was high possibility of severe damage to the internal parts of the engine and it was to be detected after thorough inspection. Even though the Opposite Party No.3 insisted the complainant to repair the Vehicle wholly and warned that much trouble and consequential damage would be affected otherwise, the complainant was reluctant to repair the vehicle wholly and by issuing an undertaking letter, he asked the Opposite Party No.3 only to replace the oil pan and to fill engine oil. Therefore the OPNo.3 repaired the vehicle to that extent and handed over the vehicle on 28.02.2018. He took the vehicle away and after some time, it was informed by the complainant over phone that the vehicle got breakdown and the vehicle was again taken to the service station of Opposite Party No. 3. It was found that there was serious damages have been caused to critical part of the vehicle and most of the damages were consequential to the non - repairing soon after accident.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and therefore they are not liable for any damages caused to complainant.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 6 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the Insurance policy certificate, Ext - A 2 is the Receipt dated 20-02-2018, Ext. A3 is the Invoice Summary dated 28-02-2017, Ext A4 is the Invoice Summary dated 24-03-2017, Ext. A5 is the Repair order dated 20.02.2017, Ext A6 is the Motor Survey Report dated 25 03.2018. The complainant was cross examined as PW 1.
The opposite party No. 3 produced and marked a document as Ext B 1 , during cross examination of P W - 1.The Document Ext. B 1 is a letter dated 20-2-2018 Signed by the Complainant.
From the side of the Opposite party No.1 and 2, the surveyor was examined as DW1. The documents are marked as Ext. B2 and Ext. B 3. The document Ext B2 is the copy of policy Certificate, Ext. B3 is the copy of Survey Report, Ext B4 and B5 are repair orders..
Thereafter the evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments and subsequently for judgment. In the mean time Opposite Party No. 3 filed IA No. 200 / 2021 for reopening the evidence which was allowed on terms.. The Opposite Party No.3 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross -examined as Dw 2.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
The specific case of the complainant is that his car bearing No - KL 14 - P - 5858 was insured with the opposite party for the period 16 - 1 -2018 to 15-01-2019. On 20-02-2018, at about 3 pm, while the Complainant was driving the car towards Seethamgoli a cow suddenly crossed the road , at near Perne Muchilot Temple , and to evade accident the car the Complainant tried to take the car to the side but he lost control and the car ran over a hard rock and the downside of the car got severe damages.
The Complainant informed Opposite Party No. 3, about the accident and the vehicle was taken to their work shop, by towing with another vehicle. The vehicle was repaired from there and the vehicle was handed over to complainant on 28-2-2018 on payment of Rs 13,130/- towards repair charge. But while driving the complainant could not find comfort on reaching near Kasaragod he heard some noise from the engine, and therefore he returned to the same workshop of Opposite Party No.3, and after thorough check up Opposite Party No.3 told that much amount is required and the insurer to be informed. Accordingly, the Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 engaged a surveyor who inspected the Vehicle on 2-3 -2018. The surveyor filed Report after a long period on 25-03-2018. There after the complainant's claim was repudiated on the ground that the accident does not come under the purview of the policy.
The complainant had to pay Rs.95,921/- to Opposite Party No. 3, towards repair charge .So the complainant argue that the repudiation of the insurance claim is service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and 2, due to which the he suffered mental agony. Hence this complaint is filed with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 1,13,051/- together with compensation and costs.
Here the main contestants in this case are Opposite Party No.1 and 2, who are the insurers. The Opposite Party No. 3 is the work shop persons in whose garage the vehicle was repaired.
The contentions of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are that there is no evidence for the accident and as per the policy conditions the insurance coverage is only for accidental damages and therefore the repudiation of claim is justified. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 would argue that the car was garaged only for periodical repair on account of usage, the complainant repaired the vehicle without complying the formalities and not informing them or the surveyor before dismantling the vehicle.
In a claim like this, the report of the surveyor is very important. The Surveyor’s report is produced and marked as Ext A6 , which shows that " In this context it is my considered opinion that the damages claimed to the insured vehicle is not due to accidental external means and does not come within the purview of insurance policy hence insurer is not Iiable in this claim. The Surveyor was examined by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 as DW 2 and he was cross examined .He deposed by approving the report. Nothing was elicited to disprove his evidence. The complainant did not adduce reliable evidence to prove his case. Here it is pertinent to note that no FIR is registered upon the accident. Also there is no visible external damage to the Vehicle. The Ext. A5 the repair order. It shows that the vehicle was entrusted with the Opposite Party N. 3 only for Engine oil leak check. There is no other complaint or damage for the vehicle. There is no mention regarding any accident. So there is no evidence of any Road Traffic accident in which the vehicle got damage.
Even though the Opposite Party No. 3, lead evidence in favour of the complainant as regards to the occurrence of the accident, they could not help much .Their own documents namely Ext. B4 or Ext. B5 would not show anything related to any accident repair.
The Ext. B1 document which produced by them cannot be taken in to account since its contents are not proved. The complainant himself denied its execution during evidence. He deposed, during cross examination, that he only signed in a blank paper and he is unaware of its contents.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case this commission is of the view that there is no reliable evidence to show that the vehicle was repaired for the damages caused due to a RTA accident within the purview of insurance policy.
Therefore this commission is of the view that there is no illegality in repudiation of the claim. Therefore there is no proof of any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in this case.
ln the result , the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Insurance Policy certificate
A2- Receipt
A3- Invoice Summary
A4- Invoice memory
A5- Repair order
A6- Motor Survey Report
B1- Letter Dt: 20/02/2018
B2- Insurance policy certificate
B3- Motor survey Report
B4 & B5- Repair order
Witness Examined
Pw1- P.G. Narayanan
Dw1- Sreejith.P
Dw2- Jeneesh Stanly.E
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
