By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is the RC owner of the Chevrolet spark car bearing Registration No.KL-7-BQ-9668. He took private car package policy from the Opposite Party. On 19.01.2019 at 2.30 pm, this vehicle collided with one tipper lorry at Vythiri and got some damages. Hence he submitted a claim before the Opposite Party. Then the Opposite Party deputed their Surveyor Mr.Raveendran and Surveyor inspected the vehicle on 23.01.2019 at M/s. Magna Motors, Theneri, Kakkavayal and assessed a damage of Rs.70,750/-. After final assessment by deducting a policy excess of Rs.1,000/- and salvage value of Rs.800/- , he fixed net amount as Rs.41,784/- and filed his report on 23.07.2019 to the Opposite Party’s office. On obtaining permission, the Complainant repaired the vehicle. But when the Opposite Party allowed the claim amount, it is seen that an amount of Rs.2,781.91/- again deducted from the final assessment amount as salvage value. The Surveyor of Opposite Party already deducted the salvage value and thus the Opposite Party is not entitled to deduct the salvage value again. So the act of double charging of salvage value by the Opposite Party is deficiency in their service and it is an unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to get Rs.2781.91/- with 12% interest from the date of default till realization with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and cost.
3. Opposite Party filed version which in short as follows:-
They admitted the ownership of the vehicle with the Complainant and also admitted the accident. On getting claim, Opposite Party deputed Surveyor and the Surveyor finally assessed the compensation of Rs.43,583.91/. The Opposite Party thereafter deducted Rs.2,584/- as salvage value and paid Rs.39,000/- to the Complainant towards claim amount. The Complainant agreed to surrender the parts replaced and this Opposite Party agreed to refund the salvage value if the parts surrendered. This Opposite Party was ready to refund the salvage value if the Complainant surrenders the parts replaced. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. They denied that Opposite Party is bound to accept the report of the Surveyor. They can take appropriate decision to arrive at a reasonable amount. Thereby they have given Rs.39,000/- to the Complainant. They denied that they took double salvage value and therefore the Complainant is entitled to get back the said amount of Rs.2,781.91/- with interest. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
Opposite Party?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A4 and Ext.X1 series. There is no evidence from the side of Opposite Party. Both sides heard.
6. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the Complainant bearing Registration No.KL-7-BQ-9668 met with an accident and on getting instruction, the Complainant repaired the vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the Surveyor of Opposite Party assessed the damage and finally concluded that the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.41,784/- . It is the case of Opposite Party that they are not bound to accept the report of Surveyor as such and they have discretion to reassess the value. According to them, they assess an amount of Rs.2584/- towards salvage value instead of salvage value of Rs.800/-assessed by the Surveyor. This is challenged by the Complainant. The Complainant has no case that the salvage value calculated by the Opposite Party is wrong. According to him, the Opposite Party charged salvage value twice. Ext.A2 is the survey report. Ext.X1 series is the file related to the claim of Complainant. On verification of the report of the Surveyor, it is seen that he assessed Rs.800/- as salvage value. But the Opposite Party reassessed it as Rs.2,284/-. Thus they have paid only Rs.39,000/- to the Complainant. According to Opposite Party, they have a right to reassess the value reached by the Surveyor. The Complainant has no case that the salvage value assessed by the Opposite Party is excess. He has no dispute with regard to the salvage value calculated by the Surveyor. His case is that the Opposite Party charged salvage value twice. But on verification, it can be seen that the Opposite Party never deducted Rs.800/- which is the salvage value assessed by the surveyor from the claim amount. As already stated, the grievance of Complainant is that the Opposite Party charged salvage value twice. But as stated above, the Opposite Party only deducted Rs.2,584/- towards salvage value assessed by them by excluding the salvage value assessed by Surveyor. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party as alleged. So the Complainant is failed to substantiate his contention. So the point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.
7. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the Complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of November 2022.
Date of Filing:-20.02.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Somil. A. A. Insurance Agent.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Policy Schedule sum Certificate of Insurance for the
period of 16.06.2019 to 25.06.2010.
A2. Motor Survey Report. Dt:23.07.2019.
A3(a). Lawyer Notice. Dt:22.08.2019.
A3(b). Acknowledgment Card.
A4. Reply Notice. Dt:03.09.2019.
X1(Series). File Related to the Claim of the Complainant produced by
Opposite Party (37 pages).
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
