KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 APPEAL  No. 163/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 25.05.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 480/2012 of CDRF, Kozhikode)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K.R                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Germen Motors, 118A, Chungam Junction,          West Hill, Calicut represented by the Manager.

                                        (By Adv. R. Suja Madhav )

                                               Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sooraj. P.K, S/o Bhaskaran, Suraj Nivas, Chakkarakkallu Via, Mumb P.O,       Kannur.

                                           (By Adv. Vinod . S)

JUDGMENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 480/2012 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 01.11.2016, the District Commission  partly allowed  the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the  inordinate delay and service deficiency occurred on their part and to pay  Rs. 5,871/-  which  was collected as excess from the  complainant and also to  pay to Rs. 3,000/-  as costs.

          2. Brief details of the complaint are as follows:

          The complainant purchased a 2009 model Chevrolet Tavera car, bearing registration No. KL-13-T 6381 from the opposite party, who are the authorised dealers of the vehicle.  He availed a loan from Mahindra Finance to purchase the vehicle.   The car met with an accident on 01.07.2010, ie. within one year. The vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party on same day to carry out the repairs.  The initial estimated expenses for repairs taken on that day was Rs. 40,000/-. But the final bill for the repair work was for Rs. 3,78,644/-.  The opposite party collected Rs. 92,547/- from the complainant in addition to the insurance amount directly received by them. The vehicle was delivered only on 16-11-2010 ie. after four and half months. The vehicle was used as a taxi by the complainant for his livelihood. Because of the inordinate delay in delivery of the vehicle after repairs, he had to incur lot of additional expense including rent for alternate vehicle.  Hence he filed this complaint claiming reimbursement of direct losses, refund of additional amount paid with compensation and costs.

          3.  Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. They contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the vehicle was used for commercial purpose which is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  They admitted purchase of the vehicle from them by the complainant and also entrusting the vehicle for repairs after the accident.  The total repair charges of the vehicle comes to Rs. 3,78,644/-.  An amount of Rs. 92,547/- was deducted by the insurance Company towards depreciation and net amount sanctioned by the  Insurance Company was Rs. 2,91,968/-only.  After settlement of the claim, there was an excess amount of Rs. 5,871/- collected from the complainant.  They were prepared to refund this amount.  There is no deficiency on their part and hence    they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exbts. A1 to A9 were marked on his side.  Opposite party filed affidavit and examined RW1 and Exbt.B1 (a) and B2 were marked on their side.  On the basis of the evidence adduced the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party has filed this appeal.

          5. Heard. Perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was used by the respondent for commercial purpose. There was no undue delay in repairing the vehicle. It was a major accident and the vehicle had extensive damages. Hence it takes a longer time for repairs. Claim in respect of the accident was given to the insurance company and the complainant was given cashless facility. He was required to pay only for that portion of the claim which was disallowed by the insurance company. There is no intentional delay on their part in delivering the vehicle after repairs. The total bill amount was Rs 3,78,644/-.  The insurance company deducted the depreciation amount from the claim amount and the net amount sanctioned by them was Rs. 2,91,968/- only. An amount of Rs. 92,547/- was collected from the respondent/complainant. An excess amount of Rs. 5,871/- was collected from him and they are ready to refund   the same at any time.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission. 

          7. We have examined the submissions and perused the records. The appellant challenges the order of the District Commission finding deficiency in their service and awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and costs of Rs 3,000/-.

8. The complainant is a driver by profession and the vehicle was purchased by him to use it as a taxi for the purpose of earning his livelihood. Documents and his deposition in this regard are not challenged. Hence we concur with the finding of the District commission that the complaint is maintainable.

9.  The appellant admits that they have repaired the vehicle of the respondent /complainant, which met with an accident on 01.07.2010 and entrusted to them on the same day for repairs.  It was delivered after repairs on 16.11.2010. ie. after 4½ months. The final repair bill was for Rs. 3,78,644/-. The insurance company approved an amount of Rs. 2,91,968/-.  The difference of Rs. 86,676/- is required to be paid by the respondent. The appellant collected Rs. 92,547/- from him. The excess amount collected is Rs 5,871/- which is to be refunded to the respondent.

10.  The appellant contended that being a major accident repair it may take more time for repair of the vehicle.  Moreover, as the vehicle is covered by   insurance, the formalities like survey of the vehicle, submission of the bills, inspections of the vehicle after repairs etc. may be required. Despite the fact that the accident to the vehicle is a major one, we observe that the period of 4½ months for repairing the vehicle is quite long.  During examination the respondent/complainant deposed that the insurance of the vehicle was arranged by the appellant dealer. Hence they have an added responsibility to get the claim settled as fast as possible.  As the appellant is the dealer of the vehicle and as the accident occurred within one year, the respondent has only very limited option to go to another workshop. We are of the view that the appellant could have repaired and returned the vehicle much earlier and that there is inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle after repairs.

11.  On the basis of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any error in the finding of the District Commission. There is no valid ground to interfere with their order.  Hence we concur with their finding that the complaint is maintainable and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party.  However, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the District Commission is on the higher side. In our opinion a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- will be just and reasonable.  Hence we reduce the same to Rs. 25,000/-. So the order passed by the District Commission is to be modified to that effect.  Hence the order of the District Commission is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded is reduced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs 25,000/-.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 01.11.2016 in C.C. No. 480/2012 of the District Commission is modified by reducing the compensation awarded from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. In all other aspects the order passed by the District commission will remain/stand intact. No costs.

          The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory deposit at the time of filing the appeal.  The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount on filing proper application.  The balance amount due  as per the order of the District Commission as modified above, shall be paid by the appellant/ opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the respondent/complainant is at liberty to  initiate appropriate  proceedings for executing the order. 

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER