By. Sri:- Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite party for the defective service in providing the claim for repair expenses of the vehicle which is damaged due to an accident incurred by the complainant.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle KL 12 E 3565 Jeep which was holding a valid insurance cover by the opposite party for the period 26.05.2012 to 25.05.2013, during the period on 08.06.2012 the above vehicle met with an accident and got it repaired and a claim form is submitted to the opposite party along with bills and all other document claiming Rs.90,000/- which is spend by the complainant. But the opposite party neglected the claim application and delayed processing without any reason. But after 5 months the opposite party has send a cheque for Rs.29,600/- only to the complainant. The complainant accepted the cheque under protest since the claim amount is very low. Hence the complainant submitted that the act of the opposite party ie inordinate delay, negligence in processing claim, not awarding the entitled amount for the actual damages is the gross deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
3. The notice were issued to opposite party and opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations and also stated that the claim application is processed immediately and appointed the surveyor and accordingly the surveyor filed a report regarding the claim. In the report it is stated that the value assessed for the damaged parts is Rs.13,486/- and assessed labour charge is Rs.18,950/- and transporting charge is Rs.1,500/- and the total amount assessed is Rs.33,936/- and after deduction Rs.4,000/- as policy excess and Rs.250/- towards salvage value the net amount is Rs.29,600/- was given to the complainant towards full and final satisfaction of the claim amount. Opposite party further stated that the complainant claimed Rs.21,000/- towards spare parts and Rs.47,000/- towards repair charge is exhorbitant amount and without any basis and submitted that the bills submitted are not an actual bill and certain bills are nil dated also and prayed to disallow the complainant with cost to this opposite party.
4. On going through the complaint, affidavit, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties?.
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 and X1 series 7 in numbers marked. Ext.A3 is marked with objection. Ext.A1 is the Copy of Insurance Policy. Ext.A2 is the copy of the cheque for Rs.29,600/- which is issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Ext.A3 is the photo of the jeep bearing No. KL 12 E 3565 seen as overturned. Ext.X1 (1) is the claim form. Ext.X1 (2) is the bill for Rs.1,557.15 dated Nil which carries TIN No.32140448842. Ext.X1(3) is the bill for Rs.48,050/- dated 21.09.2012 which carried no TIN number. Ext.X1(4) is the bill for Rs.12,194/- dated 20.09.2012 which carries no TIN number. Ext.X1(5) is the bill for Rs.2,934/- dated 20.09.2012 which carries no TIN number. Ext.X1(6) is the bill for Rs.7,780/- dated 02.07.2012 which carries TIN No.32912541405. Ext.X1(7) is the bill for Rs.15,702/- which carries no TIN number and date.
6. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 series marked with objection. Ext.B1(a) is the Survey Report and Ext.B1(b) are the photographs of the damaged parts of the vehicle.
7. On perusal of the above documents we are in the opinion that all the produced bills are not taxable bills and it cannot be believed in toto. But in the case of painting, bonnet, F/LH &RH fender, glass frame, front grille, RH&LH side body, F/bumber, seat assy rear and hood stick pipes etc No taxable bill will be available. So the labour work for paintings the entire claim amount of Rs.17,000/- is to be allowed. But the Surveyor sanctioned only Rs.8,500/- and the complainant is eligible for the balance amount of Rs.8,500/-. Hence we find that not allowing the entitled claim is gross deficiency of service from the part of opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get the actual labour charge and opposite party is liable to compensate for the same. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation and opposite party is liable to compensate the same. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to give Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Only) with 12% interest from the date of Survey Report ie 25.09.2012 and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as cost of the this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. In default the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% for whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of August 2014.
Date of Filing:15.12.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Moosa. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Naveen Palliyath. Branch Manager, United India Insurance
Co Ltd, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Insurance Policy.
A2. Copy of Cheque. Dt:02.11.2012.
A3. Photograph.
X1 (1). Claim Form.
X1(2). Bill.
X1(3). Bill. Dt:21.09.2012.
X1(4). Bill. Dt:20.09.2012.
(Contd...6)
-6-
X1(5). Bill. Dt:20.09.2012.
X1(6). Bill. Dt:02.07.2012.
X1(7). Bill.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1(a). Survey Report. Dt:25.09.2012.
B1(b). Photographs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
