By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The Complainant is the registered owner of Bharat Benz (Tempo) bearing registration number KL 73 2062 and the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party as per Policy No.1016023117P111356527 for the period from 12.11.2017 to 11.11.2018. The Complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 15.11.2017 at Thiroorangadi and the vehicle was entrusted with Autobahn Trucking Corporation Private Limited, Ramanattukara for accident repairs and the claim was submitted before the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party’s Surveyor named Dhanuraj inspected the damaged vehicle at the service centre. The service centre completed the works on 30.12.2017 and forwarded final bill for repair amounting to Rs.3,04,043/-; Tow charge Rs.22,500/-, Rs.5,000/- JCB etc and painting Rs.38,500/- which were submitted to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party assured the payment within a few days but without any information they credited an amount of Rs.2,00,299/- instead of Rs.3,69,543/- to the account of the Complainant. When the Complainant became aware of the payment, contacted the Opposite Party and demanded the balance amount, but the Opposite Party said one or other lame excuses and did not pay the amount. According to the Complainant, he is entitled to the bill amount of repair, tow charge and related expenses and painting charges, altogether an amount of Rs.3,69,543. The Opposite Party with unfair trade practice and with malicious intention to cheat the Complainant deducted an amount of Rs.1,69,244/- without any information to the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party is unfair trade practice with malicious intention to cheat the Complainant for illegal enrichment. The Opposite Party has no right to deduct the bill amount and other expenses.
3. Hence, the Complainant has approached this Commission with the following prayers.
(1). To direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.1,69,244/- with
interest @ 18% from 30.12.2017 till realisation.
(2). To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
(3). To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of this
proceedings and legal notice and
(4). To grant such other relief that this Commission deems fit to grant.
4. The Commission registered the complaint and notice was served on the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and version was filed. In the detailed version filed by the Opposite Party, it is submitted as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable as per law, facts and circumstances of the case. There is no deficiency of service on the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint. The complaint is filed without any bonafides and is in an experimental nature. The vehicle KL 73 2062 manufactured in the year 2013 was insured with the Opposite Party. The date of registration of the vehicle was 19.11.2013. the insurance policy proposed by the Complainant is only a “package policy” and not a “nil depreciation policy”. In package policy, as per the depreciation schedule for the class of the vehicle of age exceeding three years but not exceeding 4 years metal parts is under 25% and rubber, nylon, plastic parts, fibre parts, tyres, tubes, batteries 50% depreciation is to be deducted. The consumables like engine oil, lubricants, nuts, screws etc are not covered under the purview of insurance claims. The original estimate for labour charge was Rs.50,000/-; cost of spare parts Rs.3,63,605/-. Hence total estimate prepared by the repairer was Rs.4,13,605/-. The Surveyor assessed labour charge as Rs.33,335/-. The total cost of the consumable in this case assessed by the Surveyor is Rs.3,506.63/-. The insurance Surveyor assessed and recommended the net loss as Rs.2,00,820/- after deducting Rs.20,000/- towards salvage value and Rs.500/- towards policy excess. As per section ‘3’ of the policy, in the event of the vehicle being disabled by reason of loss or damage covered under this policy, the company will bear the reasonable cost of protection and removal to the nearest repairer and delivery to the insured but not exceeding Rs.750/- for three wheeled vehicle, Rs.1,500/- for taxis and Rs.2,500/- for other commercial vehicles in respect of any one accident. Hence the Opposite Party is not liable to pay sum of Rs.22,500/- towards tow charge and JCB etc Rs.5,000/-, as claimed in the complaint. Based on the assessment of the insurance Surveyor and loss assessor on 27.02.2018, the Opposite Party paid sum of Rs.2,00,299/- to the Complainant and the Complainant accepted the amount in full and final satisfaction and discharge of the claim, after executing the settlement voucher. Hence, the Complainant is estopped from claiming any further amount.
5. The Opposite Party denies all other allegations. According to Opposite Party , the Complainant is not entitled to get the entire bill amount of repair, tow charge and related expenses and painting charge altogether a sum of Rs.3,69,543/- with 18% interest, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the complaint as to cost and compensation. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays before the Commission to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
6. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant and no documents were marked from his side. He was examined as PW1. Proof affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party and documents Ext.B1 to B3 were marked from his side. He was examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 is the Report of the Insurance Surveyor & Valuer; Ext.B2 is the Package Insurance Policy and Ext.B3 is the settlement intimation voucher signed by the Complainant. Notes of arguments were also filed by both the parties.
7. Here the Commission raises the following points for consideration:-
(1). Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair
trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
(2). Whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation as
prayed for?
(3). Whether the Complainant is entitled to cost and other relief
as prayed for.?
8. On perusal of the complaint, version, affidavits, documents filed and marked and the notes of arguments the Commission finds the following:-
9. Point No.1:- It is the undisputed fact that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No. KL 73 2062 and it was insured with the Opposite Party as per Policy No.1016023117P11356527 for the period from 12.11.2017 to 11.11.2018; the vehicle met with an accident and the Complainant claimed a total estimate cost for repairs as per the bill issued by the repair shop to the tune of Rs.3.69,543/-. According to the Opposite Party the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2013 and the date of registration was 09.11.2013 and the policy taken by the Complainant was package policy (Ext.B2) and not a nil depreciation policy. It is the admitted fact that the Opposite Party has credited Rs.2,00,299/- to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant argues that he is entitled to the full amount of repair charges and other expenses incurred by him. The contention of the Opposite Party is that they have settled the amount as per the loss evaluation made out by the insurance Surveyor and valuer who is an independent loss assessor with IRDA license and who has assessed the loss as per the conditions stipulated in the package policy applicable to the insured vehicle. On scrutiny we realise that the claim amount has been settled by the Opposite Party in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Package Policy. No calculation mistake has been raised by the Complainant and the Complainant has received the amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim which is evident from the Ext.B3 document marked. Therefore we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party in this respect. So, the first part of the Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Opposite Party.
10. Another contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party arbitrarily credited the claim amount assessed by the insurance Surveyor without intimating the matter and without giving a copy of the valuation report to the Complainant. This has been admitted by the Opposite Party in oral evidence. This is the pure violation of the principles of natural justice. The contention of the Opposite Party that written request for the Surveyor report was not submitted by the Complainant cannot be admitted as a satisfactory defence for non delivery of the valuation report to the Complainant. The Complainant had the right to get a copy of the valuation report of his vehicle for verification so as to make any complaint before making the full and final settlement of his claim;. This inaction from the part of the Opposite Party is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and is unfair trade practice. That Part of Point No.1 is proved against the opposite party.
11. Point No.2:- As the last part of Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.
12. As the last part of Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Party, he is liable to pay cost of the complaint to the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) as cost of the complaint to the Complainant. This amount shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of December 2021.
Date of Filing: 12.10.2018.
PRESIDENT (I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Manu George. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Sundaran Konadan. Senior Branch Manager.
Exhibits for the complainant:
Nil.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Motor Survey Report. Dt:25.01.2018.
B2. Insurance Policy for the period of 12.11.2017 to 11.11.2018.
B3. Settlement Intimation Voucher.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
