D.O.F:28/11/2017
D.O.O:11/07/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.233/2017
Dated this, the 11th day of July 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Vishnu Bhat aged 67 years
S/o Late Krishna Bhat
R/at Sajankila of Bayar Village & Post
Manjeshwara Taluk, Kasaragod
(Adv: Ramakrishna Peruvadi) : Complainant
And
1. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Micro Office MP VII/65, First Floor
Hill side Complex, Hosangadi, Manjeshwar : Opposite Parties
Pin- 671323
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
2. Pace Motors, Represented by its Manager
N.H.Road, Mallangai, Bandiyodu, Uppala Post
Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District
Pin – 671322
(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is the owner of Honda Activa scooter No .KL 14G 9689. The Vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1 with policyNo.1020823117 P104080778. The IDV is Rs.12,000/-.
The scooter met with an accident at a place called Bayarpadav and the same was taken to service center of opposite party No.2, where it was kept for repair. The entire body and the chassis of the scooter damaged. There after a claim petition is lodged with the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and there after the opposite party No.1 entrusted the matter to an authorized surveyor, who assessed the damages. The opposite party No.2 repaired the scooter and the old chassis is replaced by a new one with the permission of the RTO Kasaragod. lt is submitted that a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was required for the repair as per the oral estimate given by the surveyor. The complainant altogether spent Rs.15,000/- for repairing . The complainant approached the opposite party several times and requested to settle his claim. The opposite party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant stating that the scooter did not involved in any road accident, but it was decayed and hence they are not liable to pay insurance amount . The complainant has been maintaining the scooter very well and there is no chance of decaying. Since the opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim the opposite party No.2 did not deliver the scooter to the complainant for long after repairing.
It is submitted that the complainant is a dairy farmer and the scooter is very much necessary for him to take the milk daily to the milk society 4km away from his house. Due to delay in delivery of the scooter after repair the complainant suffered a lot.
There is service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant is put to mental agony and hardships. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the repair charge of 15,000/- and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and costs.
The opposite party No.1 entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written Version.
As per the version of the opposite party No.1 the complaint is false frivolous, vexatious, and as such not maintainable at law .The insurance coverage for the vehicle scooter No. KL 14G 9689 is admitted. The claim of the complainant cannot be paid, as the vehicle did not suffer any damage due to any accident. The claim is for wear and tear due to prolonged usage and fatigue and no external visible damage is caused.
The survey report is binding on the parties, if at all, and is based on survey report and terms and conditions of the policy. The policy is for a sum of Rs.12000/- IDV only, producing bills for half the amount and claiming Rs.15, 000/-for repair charges and Rs.50,000/compensation etc. clearly testifies the intention of the complainant to enrich out of the situation.
The claim of the complainant is highly excessive and experimental. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the opposite party No.2, the complaint is false and is not maintainable at law. The complainant entrusted his damaged vehicle with the opposite party No. 2, for repair and maintenance and accordingly the Vehicle was repaired. It is denied that the opposite party No.2 could not deliver the vehicle with in time. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and marked documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 12 and he was cross examined as PW 1. The Ext. A1 is a copy of the Copy of RC in the name of complainant , Ext A 2 is the copy of the insurance policy, Ext. A3 is cash receipt dated 26-03-2017, Ext. A4 is cash receipt dated 11-09-2017, Ext. A5 & A6 are the cash receipt dated 26-09-2017(2 in number ),
Ext.A7 is the certificate issued by Milk producers society, Ext.A8,9,&10 are the producers wise milk collection chart(3 in number ). Ext A11 & 12are the photo copy of the letters issued to the RTO by opposite party No.2.
From the side of the opposite party No.1, Mr. Ramdas Kamath , the surveyor is examined as DW-1 and Documents Ext. B1 is marked . Ext. B1 is the Survey Report .The opposite party produced another document, the copy of Insurance policy, which is marked as Ext. B2.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance amount?
- Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of any of the opposite parties?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience, all the above issues are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that his scooter met with an accident at a place called Bayarpadav and the same was taken to service center of opposite party No.2, where it was kept for repair. The entire body and the chassis of the scooter damaged. There after a claim petition is lodged with the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 and there after the opposite party No.1 entrusted the matter to an authorized surveyor, who assessed the damages. The opposite party No.2 repaired the scooter and the old chassis is replaced by a new one with the permission of the RTO Kasaragod . lt is submitted that a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was required for the repair as per the oral estimate given by the surveyor. The complainant altogether spent Rs.15,000/- for repairing . The complainant approached the OP several times and requested to settle his claim. The opposite party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant stating that the scooter did not involved in any road accident, but it was decayed and hence they are not liable to pay insurance amount. The complainant has been maintaining the scooter very well and there is no chance of decaying. Since the opposite party No.1 did not settle the claim the opposite party No.2 did not deliver the scooter to the complainant for long after repairing. It is submitted that the complainant is a dairy farmer and the scooter is very much necessary for him daily to take the milk to the milk society 4km away from his house. Due to delay in delivery of the scooter after repair the complainant suffered a lot.
The opposite party argue that even though the insurance coverage for the vehicle scooter No. KL 14G 9689 is admitted, the claim of the complainant cannot be paid as the vehicle did not suffer any damage due to any accident. The claim is for wear and tear, due to prolonged usage and fatigue and no external visible damage is caused.
The survey report is binding on the parties, if at all, and is based on survey report and terms and conditions of the policy. The policy is for a sum of Rs.12000/- IDV only, producing bills for half the amount and claiming Rs.15,000/- for repair charges and Rs.50,000-/compensation etc. clearly testifies the intention of the complainant to enrich
out of the situation The claim of the complainant is highly excessive and experimental . There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The opposite party No.2, states that the complainant entrusted his damaged vehicle
with them, for repair and maintenance and accordingly and accordingly the Vehicle was repaired. It is denied that the opposite party No.2 could not deliver the vehicle with in time. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed
Here the surveyor didn't support the case of the complainant. The document Ext. B1, the Survey Report, assess no Iiability to the insurer. The surveyor was examined as DW 2, who deposed that to the effect that there is no evidence of any accident with the Vehicle . As per his observation the chassis frame is faded or damaged due to rust and not by any external impact and that is why he had not recommended for insurers liability.
It is pertinent to note that the Scooter is 2008 make and the photographs attached to the Survey Report show that the vehicle is least maintained. It appears to be not even washed for long and mud and rust coated all over its body. .It is possible that the presence of rust and mud would have prejudiced the Surveyor, while inspecting the vehicle. No case that the vehicle is kept idle. Even though the Vehicle is over used, it will be rusted due to non maintenance. It is also true that the presence of rust does not wash out the chances of accident also.
The complainant mainly rely on Ext. A11 which is a copy of letter submitted by the opposite party No. 2 to RTO, seeking permission to replace the damaged chassis . ln that letter it is mentioned that the scooter had met with an accident on 14.08.2017. Even though the opposite party No.2 did not admit the fact of accident in their written version, it is pertinent to note that they have not specifically denied such a thing also.
So the Ext.11 can be treated as an evidence as to the fact that the scooter got damaged in an accident. The Opposite party No.1 would argue that to deny such a small claim the surveyor need not speak false hood. It is equally true that to get such a small claim, a poor dairy farmer would not engage in a long legal battle, without having a genuine reason. The survey report has no sanctity unless it is prepared following the procedures. Admittedly the Surveyor inspected the vehicle along with men of the opposite parties, without giving notice to the RC owner of the vehicle.
Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for the insurance benefit for the repair of his vehicle damaged in an accident as per the terms and condition of the policy. The complainant produced the documents Ext A4 to 6, the bills, to show the exact amount spent by him for the repair of the vehicle .That is a total of Rs.6,034/- + Rs.3,100/- + Rs.55/-.= Rs.9,189/- The vehicle is 2008 make and registered on 27.05.2008. The date of accident was on 14.08.2017. Therefore vehicle was 9 years of age. As per the terms and conditions of the policy , a depreciation of 40% to be calculated for vehicles of 5 years but not exceeding 10 years .Then the actual amount entitled by the complainant would be 60% of Rs.9,189/-, which is Rs.5,514/-. It appears that the opposite party No.1 has been trying to evade the payment of such a small amount. On one or the other pretext, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of them. Therefore a small compensation also to be allowed to the complainant for mental agony and hardships. This commission hold that Rs.5,000/-would be a reasonable compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite partyNo.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,514/- to the complainant, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 28.11.2017, the date of complaint, till the date of payment. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only)costs to the complainant.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Certificate of Registration
A2- Insurance Policy
A3- Cash receipt 26/03/2017
A4- Tax invoice 11/09/2017
A5 & A6 – Cash receipt Dt: 26/09/2017
A7- Certificate issued by milk producers
A8,9, &10 – Producer wise collection
A11 & 12- Copy of the letters issued to the RTO
B1- Motor survey report
B2- Insurance policy
Witness Examined
Pw1- Vishnu Bhat
Dw1- Ramdas Kamath.M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
