D.O.F:03/09/2020
D.O.O:29/12/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.105/2020
Dated this, the 29th day of December 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Shybi Raju,
W/o Raju Mathayi,
Mailayakkal, : Complainant
Punnakkunnu P.O,
Vellarikkundu 671 534
And
- Sri Justin Jeevanand,
The New India Assurance Co.Agency Office
Beemanady P.O
Nileshwar Via – 671314: Opposite Parties
- The New India Assurance Co Ltd,,1st Floor
City Plaza,
Opp. LIC of India,
Market Jn,
Nileshwar- 671314
(Adv: Ashok Kumar. A.C)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case of Sri Shyby Raju is that she is the owner of a Honda Dio Scooty bearing Reg.No KL-60/L-5063. The aforesaid Honda Scooty met with an accident on 10-7-2020 and the vehicle got some damages. The accident is informed to Vellarikkund Police Station and insurance company. The Honda Scotty is entrusted to nearest workshop for repair. The surveyor of the company assessed the loss and took quotation from workshop. After the repair works the workshop has given a bill of Rs.19,000/-. The allegation of the complainant is that the company demanded printed GST bill which is not available in small shops functioning in villages.
The opposite party filed version with delay condonation petition. As per the version filed by opposite party No.2 the complaint is false frivolous vexatious and not maintainable at law. It is true that Opposite Party No.2 has insured the scooter KL-60/L-5063 for a period from 07/12/19 to 06/12/2020. The opposite party No.2 further admitted that the vehicle met with an accident and insurance surveyor assessed the loss. The complainant submitted an estimate of Rs.19,000/- but the bill produced by the complainant is a hand written bill. It was not a true and genuine bill. It is true that opposite party requested the complainant to produce GST Bill. But opposite party has no denied the claim on that basis. Immediately on receiving the claim intimation this opposite party has arranged surveyor Vinod Kumar. M.K to assess the loss and after inspection he assessed loss at Rs.11,530/-. Thereafter on the basis of the dealer price to spare parts, the opposite party assessed the loss at Rs.10,000/- and settled the claim for that amount and the complainant is also agreed for the same. Thereafter opposite party has transferred an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the account of the complainant through NEFT on 24/12/2020 from the account of this opposite party with Co-Operation bank. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. This complaint is an afterthought, after receiving the compensation. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from this opposite party. The complainant has already received the compensation. The complaint has been filed after suppressing the natural facts. So the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this complaint. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as Pw1 by the counsel of Opposite Party. The complainant filed an application to implead Nileshwar Office of Opposite Party as supplement Opposite Party No.2. The documents produced are marked as Ext A1, A2 and A3. A1 is the letter sent by the surveyor to the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence filed documents B1 and B2.
The issues raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issues No.1, 2 and 3 can be discussed together.
The complainants Honda scooty met with an accident and got some damage. The insurer surveyor assessed loss and took quotation from workshop. After the repair works the workshop has given a bill of Rs.19,000/- including the price of spare parts. The opposite parties demand a printed GST bill. Agitated by the demand of opposite parties the complainant filed this complaint. Demanding a printed bill is deficiency in service. If the printed bill is not available with workshop, they can collect such a bill from the dealer of spare parts from whom they purchased the spare parts. We perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and statement and documents produced by the opposite party. Ext.A1 is not a genuine bill. The opposite parties produced Ext.B1 to prove that the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor is already transferred to the account of the complainant by the opposite party on 24/12/2020. The complainant admitted in cross examination that he has received the aforesaid amount. The object of the consumer protection Act is to protect the consumers from unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. In this case of the opposite party had rejected the claim, the complaint can approach this commission for deficiency in service. Here the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The Commission holds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as per the Ext.B1 the amount is already transferred to complainant’s account. So the complainant is not entitled for any further relief.
Therefore the complainant is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Bill.
A2: Photo of workshop.
B1- Statement copy
B2- Motor Survey Report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Shaiby Raju
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
