D.O.F:17/06/2020
D.O.O:10/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.60/2020
Dated this, the 10th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Naiju.K.P, aged 38 years,
S/o Munambath Govindan
“Munambath House”,
Achamthuruthy.P.O : Complainant
Cheruvathur, Hosdurg Taluk
Kasaragod – 671351
(Adv: M. Ramesh)
And
1. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd
Payyanur.P.O
Kannur District – 670307
(Adv: C. Damodaran) : Opposite Parties
2. The Manager,
KVR Cars, NH 17
Arangadi, Kanhangad
Kasaragod.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The Complainant is the registered owner of the Maruthi Swift Car KL – 60 G 4956. It is covered by valid insurance for the period from 10/02/2019 to 09/02/2020. The vehicle met with a road traffic accident on 09/01/2020 by colliding with an Autorikshaw. Maruthi car suffered damages and it is removed to the police station and later repaired from the 2nd Opposite Party dealer. Rs. 61245/- is the amount covered by bill issued by dealer workshop. Vehicle kept for 17 days in workshop. The matter informed to Opposite Party No: 1 but no payment of bill. Complainant paid bill amount and now claims re-imbursement. Lawyer notice is sent but no reply. So this complaint is to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 61246/- towards repair charges, Rs. 25,000/- for delay in not releasing insurance claim, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of reputation of business, good will, and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental tension suffered and litigation cost.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 filed the written version. Opposite Party No: 1 admitted the insurance policy. Opposite Party No: 1 settled the claim covered by invoice or Rs. 40372/- on 04/04/2020. Prior to filing the complaint. Survey report is accepted by both parties 50% of spare parts alone is payable. KVR the dealer workshop already received the claim amount. But suppressed by the complainant and Opposite Party No:1 not liable to pay any amount to complainant.
3. Opposite Party No:1 filed IA 126/2021 to implead Opposite Party No:2 the dealer works shop as supplemental Opposite Party No:2. IA allowed and notice issued but failed to appear and name called and set exparte.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 and Ext A1 to A10 documents marked from his side.
5. Following points raised for consideration in this case
a) Whether repudiation of the claim is justifiable
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Parties? And whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
6. According to complainant Rs. 61,240/- is the bill for repair works issued by KVR cars Opposite Party No: 2. He paid the amount in cash directly to the Opposite Party No:2 evidenced by receipt marked as Ext A3 dated 17/02/2020 where as Opposite Party No:1 credited Rs. 42370/- to the credit of KVR only on 04/04/2020. The complainant deposed that he is not aware of credit of repair bill amount with KVR cars Opposite Party No:2. He did not make enquiries with Opposite Party No:2 as to what amount is credited or not. Vehicle is 6 years old and subjected to depreciation.
7. In view of the fact that even after impleading KVR as Opposite Party No:2 complainant says he is not aware of credit made by Opposite Party No:1 to KVR covered by the bill amount after depreciation. Complainant has no objection for surveyors report. Opposite Party No: 1 paid repair bill amount direct to the credit of Opposite Party No: 2 after deducting depreciation as applicable to the case. So insurance company is exonerated from all a liabilities in view of payment of bill amount directed by credit even prior to filing complaint but did not make enquiry with Opposite Party No:2 who remained exparte.
Thus payment is already made by Opposite Party No:1 on 04/04/2020 even before filing complaint, but not mentioned by complainant but not denied in evidence and since payment is evidenced by Ext B1 (a). there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company Opposite Party No:1. So complainant against Opposite Party No:1 dismissed.
Complainant though impleaded Opposite Party No:2 no reliefs specifically claimed against Opposite Party No:2 . But Opposite Party No:2 is liable to re-pay the amount of Rs.42370/- received by them from Opposite Party No:1 on 04/04/2020 to the complainant with interest from 04/04/2020 till payment. There is deficiency in service of Opposite Party No:2 in not informing the credit of amount covered by the bill to complainant and remaining absent even after receipt of notice from consumer commission. Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- payable by Opposite Party No:2 and Opposite Party No:2 shall pay Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite Party No:2 to pay Rs. 42,370/- to the complainant with interest of 6% from 04/04/2020 till payment with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1- Insurance policy Certificate
A2- Copy of driving license
A3- Copy of R.C
A4- FIR
A5- Notice
A6- Job Slip
A7- Job card invoice
A8- Lawyer Notice
A9- Postal receipt
A10- Postal Acknowledgment
B1- Copy of the details of amount credited in the account of KVR cars by NEFT
B2- Copy of the policy
Witness Examined
Pw1- Naiju- K.P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
