SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party No.1 to return the excess amount of Rs.63,281/- and to pay Rs. 63,112.86 towards the subsequent repairing charges which happened due to the defective repairing work of opposite party No.1 and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant is the RC Owner of the vehicle Ashok Leyland 1213 A1 bearing registration No. KL 58 V 7483. The vehicle is used for transporting materials, the complainant and family members are depending the income derived from the vehicle for their livelihood. He purchased the vehicle after availing a higher purchase loan from Cholamandalam invest & finance Ltd., at Chennai. On 16/04/2021the vehicle had met with an accident at Madappurachal near Manathana. In the accident substantial damages were caused to the vehicle had towed to OP No.1. The complainant had also met the towing charge. The vehicle was insured by OP No.2 at the time of accident, the accident was duly informed to OP 2. There after the vehicle was brought to OP No.1’s workshop and the surveyor appointed by OP NO.2 inspected the vehicle and assessed the cost of repairing work and re-placement of damaged parts Rs.6,51,335/-. The OP NO.1 had taken 5 months to complete the repairing work and make it as road worthy condition. Finally on 09/09/2021 the vehicle was delivered to the complainant but an additional amount of Rs. 63,281/- was claimed from him for the settlement of bill amount apart from the payment made by the OP No.2 insurer. When the complainant perused the invoice bill, it had been seen that the OP1 had carried out some additional work which are not find a place in the survey report. The OP No.1 has no right to replace the spare parts disregarding the report of surveyor. He can do it only with the consent and permission of the complainant. The vehicle is not satisfactorily repaired by the OP No.1. Even after delivering vehicle after carrying out the complete repairing work, complainants were again occurred and the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.22,647.34/-, Rs. 39,866.8 & Rs599.44 on different invoices. It happened due to the defective repairing work. The act of OP No.1 the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs. After receiving the notice both OPs appeared before the commission and filed their written version. OP1 contended that while entrusting the vehicle the complainant had stated that the necessary repairs be carried out under insurance coverage. The service personnel in the workshop of this OP had on 26/04/2021 obtained the accident vehicle acknowledgment duly signed by the complainant where in the process that would be adopted for carrying out the repairs under insurance coverage had been specifically stated. The OP1 had furnished to the complainant an additional estimate dated 05/05/2021 for an amount of Rs.1,88,947/-. On dismantling any other job is found absolutely necessary the OP 1 will proceed with the repairs in anticipation of the charges for such overhauling repairs and replacements will be charged extra. The insurance surveyor had conducted a further inspection and submitted a survey report dated 17/09/2021 and the surveyor disallowed the additional work of Rs.63,281/-. At the time of delivery of his vehicle the complainant had paid Rs.63,281/- without any complaint. The vehicle of the complainant having sustained extensive damage the OP has within the shortest possible time carried out the repairs and delivered the vehicle to the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP 1 and the complaint may be dismissed.
OP No.2 issued a policy of insurance No.442600/31/2021/3336 covering the period from 02/08/2020 to 01/08/2021 to the vehicle Asoka Leyland A1 bearing reg. No. KL-58-V 7483 in favour of the complainant. This OP No.2 submits that on 30/09/2021 a sum of Rs.5,69,485/- has been given to the insured, and the complainant’s bank account No.113366SALOIC INS, IFSC Code HDFC0004989 as the full and final settlement amount as per the claim submitted by the he complainant before OP No.2. So there is no relief is sought against OP No.2 . So there is no relief is sought against OP No.2 and OP No.2 is an unnecessary party in this case. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from OP No.2 and the compliant may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OP No.1. The documents Ext.A1 to A7 were marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant the vehicle was insured with OP No.2 and on 16/04/2021 the vehicle had met with an accident and duly intimated to OP No.2. The surveyor appointed by OP No.2 assessed the cost of repairing work and replacement of damaged parts as Rs.6,51,335/-. The OP No.1 had taken 5 months to complete the repairing work and make it as roadworthy. On 09/09/2021 the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and OP 1 incurred an amount of Rs.63,281/- claimed from him for the settlement of bill amount apart from the payment made by OP No.2. The OP No.1 also added Rs.18,000/- as salvage value and Rs.1,000/- as policy charge, Rs.15,659/- as the undamaged door. Moreover after taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant also aid Rs.63,112.86/- towards the subsequent repairing charges which happened due to the defective repairing work of the vehicle. The Ext.A4 to Ext.A6 which clearly shows that the complainant paid repair charges dated 29/12/2021 for Rs.22,647.34 (Ext.A4), bill dated 03/01/2022 Rs.39,866.8, (Ext.A5) and bill dated 22/01/2022 for Rs.599.44/- (Ext.A6). As per the evidence of Pw1 he incurred Rs.63,112.86/- as the additional repair charges of the vehicle. On OP’s side no documents or evidence to prove their defense also. So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. So OP No.1 is liable to compensate the losses sustained to the complainant. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
As discussed above the complainant is insured the vehicle KL 58-V-7483 to OP No.2. On 16/04/2021 the vehicle had met with an accident and substantial damages were caused to the vehicle. There after the vehicle was brought to OP No.1’s workshop and the surveyor appointed by OP No.2 inspected the vehicle and assessed the cost of repairing work and replacement of damaged parts. On 09/09/2021 the OP1 delivered the vehicle to complainant but an additional amount of Rs.63,281/- claimed from him. But OP No.1 was already received the undamaged door Rs.12,234/- salvage value of Rs.18,000/- and policy charge of Rs.1,000/- from OP No.2’s survey report. Therefore we hold that this salvage value, policy charge and undamaged door value are excess amount collected by OP No.1 from the complainant (ie.18,000+1000+3425). So the OP No.1 is liable to returned the excess amount of Rs.22,425/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.63,112.86/- towards the subsequent repairing charges which happened due to the defective repairing work of the vehicle by OP No.1 along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the Issue No.2 & 3 are also answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No. 1 to return the excess amount of Rs.22,425/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.63,112.86/- to the subsequent repairing charges happened due to the defective repairing work done by opposite party No. 1 along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.85,538/- (22,425+63,112.86)carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts.
A1 –Copy of FIR
A2-Insurance policy
A3- Tax invoice
A4-Job card dated 29/12/2021(revise estimate)
A5- Job card dated 03/01/2022(Service performa)
A6 – Job card dated 22/01/2022(Service performa)
A7 –Survey report
Pw1- Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
