By. Smt. Saji Mathew, Member.
The gist of the case is as follows:- The complainant insured his vehicle Mahindra Xylo E8 2008 model Lucky Lilac bearing Register No. KL 12 D 5775 with chassis No.MAIYA2BVN92A13298 and Engine No.BV94A34702 with the opposite party No.3. The vehicle met with accident on 28.05.2011. The matter was reported to the insurance company and the vehicle was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for repair and insurance claim. The 3rd oppositeparty is a concern working under TVS business group. 2nd opposite party assured that they would repair the vehicle and get the entire expense from the 3rd opposite party. When the 2nd opposite party informed the 3rd opposite party about the accident 3rd opposite party appointed 1st opposite party to inspect and assess the damages. When enquiry about the progress of repair and about the claim, 2nd opposite party assured that they have sent the claim form with other documents.
2. But 2nd opposite party failed to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. About the insurance claim, they said that the survey report lacked clarity and the surveyor was directed to file an additional report. The 2nd opposite party demanded for the full settlement of the bill for delivery the vehicle to the complainant. Since the complainant was in need for the vehicle, he paid Rs.29,831/- towards the bill of Rs.29,526/- and took the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party also assured that they would rectify the poor paint job and tinkering work. But they never did that. They did not availed the insurance claim to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the 2nd opposite party to rectify the poor paint job and tinkering work at their own cost and directing all the opposite parties to refund Rs.29,831 with 12% interest and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The opposite parties were declared exparte. For the complainant, her husband filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6.
4. Here the matters to be decided are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?.
5. Point No.1 :- Ext.A2 shows that the complainant is the owner of KL 12 D 5775 vehicle and Ext.A1 shows that the vehicle met with accident on 28.05.2011. Ext.A3 is the insurance policy. Ext.A4 is the credit bill given by opposite party No.2 for Rs.29,831/-. Ext.A6 is the account statement of complainant with corporation bank which shows transmission of Rs.28,750/- to 2nd opposite party from complainant's account. There is no evidence to show that the expense incurred by the complainant on repair of the vehicle has been reimbursed by opposite party No.3 as per the insurance policy. So there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party No.3. As far as Opposite party is concerned, there is no evidence to show the drawbacks in the repairing work.
6. Point No.2:- The complainant is entitled to get the amount incurred by him on the repair of the vehicle. He is also entitled to get reasonable compensation also.
Hence the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to give the complainant Rs.28,750/- ( Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Opposite party No.3 is also directed to give an interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till payment.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 30th November 2011.
Date of Filing:26.08.2011.
