KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.497/2014

JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 63/2011  on the file CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K. CHANDRA DAS NADAR             : JUDICIAL MEMBER        

APPELLANT:

          Oriental Insurance Company,

          Divisional Office, Marthom Buildings,

          T.K.Road, Thiruvalla.

          (By Adv. R.S.Kalkura & G.S.Kalkura)

RESPONDENTS:

1. Samuel Varghese, Kandathil Parambil

House, Muttom, Haripad,

Alappuzha- 6950511.

2. Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd,

A-1/1, MIDC, Five Star Industrial

Area, Shendra, Aurangabad- 431201.

3. Marikar Engineers Pvt Ltd,

Lissie  Junction, Ernakulam- 682018.

4. P.A. Santhosh,

Surveyor and Loss Assessor,

X11/445, Sub Jail road, Aluva.

                                                          (2)

JUDGMENT

SMT. A.RADHA: MEMBER     

1. The second opposite party is the appellant herein who preferred this   appeal against the order in CC.No.63/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam.  The first respondent is the complainant and opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 are respondents 2 to 4. 

      2. The facts of the case are that the complainant who is the owner in possession of  Skoda Octavia  car manufactured by first opposite party sold through 3^rd opposite party   and was insured  for Rs. 9,10,000/-with 2^nd opposite party and  was having valid  insurance policy  during the period from  12-05-2009  to 11-05-2010.  The vehicle met with an accident on  10-03-2010   and  informed  the second opposite party .  The  vehicle had to be  towed to a work shop.    A  surveyor was deputed to  assess the  damage   and before submission of the  report  the surveyor passed  away    and the second opposite party appointed the 4^th opposite party,   another  surveyor.  The estimate for the repair  obtained by 4^th  opposite party and the detailed  estimate  for the repair was for  Rs. 12,85,252/-.  Even  after several enquiries  the claim for insurance  was not indemnified.  The delay in furnishing the loss assessment caused   financial   loss to the complainant .  It is stated in the complaint that the

                                                                    (3)

vehicle has to be declared   on total loss basis due to the accident.  The complainant claimed  the value of the car  @ Rs. 9,10,000/-  as per the IDV.  The opposite parties could have accepted  the repair  on the  basis of IDV .  The complainant had not  received any money towards the repair charges even though he was having  valid insurance policy.  The complainant is constrained to file the    complaint for direction to pay Rs. 9,10,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of accident and also to pay Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for the delay in rendering  service and also for costs.                                       

3. Opposite parties filed  version separately .  The first opposite party contended that there is no  complaint  with respect to  manufacturing defect by the complainant.  The first opposite party has provided  warranty  of 2 years  as per Insurance  policy.  The complainant is alleging deficiency in service  on the part of insurance  company for not settling the insurance claim.  Hence the first opposite party is not  a necessary  party to the complaint  and no compensation  is liable  to be    claimed from first opposite party   and  unnecessarily  dragged to this complaint.

4.  The  second opposite party  admitted the insurance policy  and the liability  of the  insurer is only as  per the terms  and conditions.   The second opposite  party  was  informed   of  the    accident only on

                                                                    (4)

12-03-2010.  There is  a delay in intimating the accident.  It is contended that  a surveyor who was appointed  initially passed away before  submitting the report.  The vehicle  was removed to Merc motors as per the  decision of the complainant.  The 4^th opposite party  is the surveyor appointed by the second opposite party.  Before inspection by the 4^th opposite party the Merc motors  started the repair work.  The complainant wanted to claim total loss of  vehicle  and the 3^rd opposite party agreed to  oblige the complainant.  The 4^th opposite party inspected  the vehicle on 02-04-2010.  The external damages were assessed  and   it was  informed to  complainant.  Since the net loss  did not come to 75% of the declared value,  the mode  of settlement  would be repair  basis only.  The 3^rd opposite party estimated the expense for   the repair to the  tune of Rs. 14,38,290/-.  Detailed estimate supplied  by the 3^rd opposite party on 14-07-2010 and  on  28-10-2010 gave a detailed  estimate for Rs. 7,74,867/-.  The final  report by the 4^th opposite party was submitted on 27-11-2010  assessing  the loss at Rs. 4,26,542/-.  As  per the terms of policy insured  vehicle shall be treated as total loss  if  the cost  of repair  of the vehicle  exceeds  75% of IDV.  The claim of the complainant  for settlement  on total  loss basis  was  disallowed.  The complainant refused to  repair vehicle  since he wanted  to settle on total  loss basis.  The delay if any caused   in repairing  the vehicle  or  settling  the claim

                                                                   (5)

was due to the action  of the complainant.  The complainant suppressed the material  facts for not  adhering   to the claim  of the complainant  or disallowing  the total  loss basis.  The insured  is bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  The  delay in repairing   the car  was  on account  of the deliberate attitude  of the complainant   for which the opposite party  cannot be made  liable.  The surveyor  report is to settle the claim for the admissible  amount  on  repair basis.  The complainant  had not  submitted  original bills.  The complainant   is not entitled  for claiming  compensation from the  second opposite party. 

5.  The 3^rd opposite party   contended  that the subject  matter of the complainant  is  the negligence   committed by the  Insurance Company by delaying  the completion  of     damage  assessment  by the surveyor.  This opposite  party had not  received  any consideration from the complainant  and  complainant is not  a consumer  as per the provisions   of  CP act and  the complaint   is liable  to be dismissed.  It is  admitted  that the   shell of the  vehicle  needs  replacement    as it is   badly damaged  and the estimate  had submitted to the second  and 4^th opposite party.  This opposite party  in no way involved  in the insurance  claim  process of the complainant.  There is no allegation or     defect to the  car with regard  to manufacturing and   the subject  matter of defect  

                                                                   (6)

caused  due to the accident  only.  Hence no deficiency in service can be  attributed upon the 3^rd   opposite party. 

          6.  It is contended  in the version filed by the 4^th opposite party that there is no consumer  relationship between this opposite party and  the complainant.  This opposite party is  engaged  by second opposite party  for preparation of survey  report in relation to  the claim   and is not  answerable to the complainant.  No  service is provided to the  complainant within the meaning  of  CP Act .  The 4^th opposite party is concerned with    regard to  the process of survey   and preparation of survey   report.  Although  a surveyor  was  appointed  initially  he  passed away before  submitting the report.  The survey  was allotted  to this opposite party on 29-03-2010 only.  The vehicle was removed  to  Merc motors by the direction of the complainant  alone.  The claim of the complainant  for settlement on total  loss  basis was disallowed.  The action  of this opposite party and the second  opposite party were in accordance with  the terms and conditions of this policy.  In fact the surveyor  report  found the claim to be  admissible on repair   basis.    Hence no liability can be  mulcted    with this opposite party. 

7.  The evidence consisted  of the oral  testimony  of the  Power of Attorney   of the  complainant   as PW1  and Exbts. A1 to A8 were marked.  On the part of second opposite party DW1 was examined,  the

                                                                   (7)

4^th opposite party was examined as DW2   and Exbts. B1 to B3, B4 toB5 were marked  respectively.  Exbts X1 to X6 were  also marked. 

          8.  The counsel for the appellant  submitted that the Forum  Below allowed the complaint and directed  to pay  Rs. 9,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  As per the terms and conditions  of the policy  the estimate  for  the  labour and towing at  Rs. 46,500/- and the cost of  spare parts etc  come to  7,74,867/-.   The Insurance surveyor assessed the  loss  and the final  report at Rs. 4, 26,542/-.   It is  submitted that the estimate of 3^rd opposite party was not satisfactory and entrusted for  the repair work with the 3^rd respondent  herein.   The estimate  submitted was inspected by the surveyor.   Consequent to  the inspection  and discussions  the surveyor had permitted the  3^rd respondent to carry out  the repair for  an amount  of Rs. 7,74,867/-.  It is also pointed out that the complainant was evading  to give direction  to the repairs   despite the   repeated the requests  made by the  surveyor to carry out the repair work.  It is argued that  the  appointment  of expert  commissioner  by the District Forum after tendering  oral evidence  by the parties is unsustainable.  The expert commissioner  had not   carried  out the survey  as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The District Forum  out rightly    rejected the assessment  made by  insurance surveyor.  The expert commissioner was not examined by the

                                                                   (8)

complainant  nor the commission report  proved properly.  The respondent unnecessarily  appointed the expert  in order to enrich    illegal   claim.  It is also  prayed to set aside the  order passed by the Forum Below.  The appellant is ready to pay the assessed amount by the Insurance surveyor. 

9.  It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent  that the loss assessed  by the surveyor  is highly prejudiced .  The vehicle met  with an accident and  the car skid upside and had to tow the car to the workshop.  The damage has to be assessed  on total loss basis  as the car has  damaged fully.  The car is having  valid insurance policy for the period from 12-05-2009 to 11-05-2010.  The counsel pointed  out that there had a delay in appointing  the surveyor as  the first surveyor passed away  before  submitting the report .   The estimated   bill issued by the 3^rd respondent  comes to Rs. 12,85,252/-  and the revised  estimate  assessed  the loss at 14,38,290/-.  The total loss basis was disallowed  and claim   admissible is   on repair basis .   The second surveyor inspected the vehicle on 20-04-2010 only.   As there had delay in submitting the  assessment and that to assess the damage with meager amount, the respondent had to approach the District Forum to get  his  claim amount.  On request   of  the  complainant   the Forum below appointed an expert  commissioner  who inspected the vehicle and

                                                                   (9)

assessed the loss.  The expert commissioner  was appointed for the purpose  of  better  understanding  of the  relevant question as the  repair was not carried  out so far .  The expert commissioner inspected the vehicle  after few years after the     accident  and the vehicle was lying   at  the work shop.  The expert  valuation  was carried out  independently  and filed  unbiased  assessment,   Exbt. X7,  dated 18-07-2013 assessed the total loss of Rs. 12,57,233/-.  The respondent had incurred  heavy  financial loss  on idling the   vehicle  without repair   and  not fixing the repair charges  properly  by the  appellant.  There is considerable delay  and  indifference  on the part of the appellant  in discharging  their  contractual  obligation.  The IDV  of  the car  was     computed    at     Rs. 9,10,000/-  against which  the premium  has been   accepted by the appellant.  As the vehicle was not  able to use further   it is to be considered on total  loss basis  and the respondent  claimed the assessed  amount with interest. 

          10.  We have heard the counsels in detail   and had  gone through the records.  We find that the car  involved  in  the accident  is having  valid insurance  policy.  The accident is not disputed and the insurance surveyor  was appointed  to assess  the loss  incurred in the accident.  Unfortunately,  the first surveyor passed away   and the second surveyor  inspected the vehicle and submitted the report   and assessed the loss  to

                                                                   (10)

the tune  of Rs.4,26,542/- which was not  amenable  to the respondent.  The respondent claimed the IDV   as the vehicle was totally  damaged  and the  assessment   made   by the 3^rd  respondent  was Rs. 14,38,290/-.  The  insurance  surveyor  calculated   loss and after depreciation  come to  only Rs. 4,26,542/-.  The accident  was in the  year 2010 and the complainant  filed the complaint before the  Forum Below in 2011.   As the claim was not settled by the appellant / second opposite party, for one or the  other reason.  The evidence  was taken  in  2013 and by  that time the electronic controlled car  Skoda was  totally damaged and the expert commissioner  was appointed on  request of the respondent  before the Forum Below.  The expert commissioner filed  a report as Exbt. X6.  We would like to   point  out that the insurance claim had to be settled  within a  reasonable time in this case.   The claim was not settled nor the loss  assessment made in time.  Moreover the vehicle  was lying idle  at the work shop  of the  3^rd respondent.  The report  of the expert commissioner would show  that an amount of 12,57,233/-  required  to carry out  repair work.  Though the appellant  deputed the surveyors the claim  was not settled in time.  Due to the delay the  vehicle got totally damaged  and we have to rely on the  report  of the expert  commissioner.  We are of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere  with the order passed  by the  Forum Below. 

                                                                    (11)

In the result,    appeal  dismissed and we uphod the order passed by the Forum Below.                                                                

          Office is directed to send  a   copy of this order along with  LCR.

                                      A.RADHA                           :       MEMBER

                                     K.CHANDRA DAS NADAR :     JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sh/-