KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 229/03 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.8.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP 454/2000 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. Kunju Koshy, Kolanji Puthen Veettil Thekkethil, : APPELLANTS Padinjattam Murry, Manampuzha.P.O., Kunnathoor, Kollam. 2. Baby.K., --do- do- (By Adv. S.Sathi) Vs. 1. The Divisional Manager, : RESPONDENTS National Insurance Co.Ltd., Hospital Road, Kollam. By Adv.K.Sreekumaran Nair) 2. The General Manager, Smooth Sell, P.O.Box.No.291, Hospital Road, Kollam. (By Adv.Raja Vijayaraghavan) 3. The Secretary, The Sasthamcotta Co-operative Agricultural And Rural Development Bank, Sasthamcotta. 4. The Sale Officer, Sasthamcotta Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Sasthamcotta. (By Adv.Dinesh Sajan.K counsel for R3 and R4) 5. The Division Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., L.I.C.Building, Chinnakkada, Kollam. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : JUSTICE The appellant is the complainant in OP 454/2000 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complainant stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the Mini Lorry purchased by him met with an accident on 19.3.97. According to him the vehicle was damaged and completely destroyed in the accident. The Surveyor appointed by the opposite party/Insurer assessed the cost of repairs as Rs.1,51,985/-. The vehicle has brought to the workshop of the 2nd opposite party in March 1997. The 2nd respondent wanted a sum of Rs.10000/- to start the repair works assuring that the same can cover the entire works within two weeks. He borrowed the above amount and paid the same to the 2nd respondent . But the 2nd respondent again asked for 20000/-. He managed the above amount and also paid the same to the 2nd respondent on 12.2.98. But the 2nd respondent did not do any repair so far. The complainant had borrowed the amounts at 36% interest and the vehicle was purchased availing loan from the 3rd and 4th opposite parties/Bank. The 5th opposite party is the insurer of the offending vehicle. None of the opposite parties had taken any steps to see that the repairs are done. That the 3rd and 4th opposite party Bank is taking steps to realise the loan amounts. All the opposite parties are liable for the loss sustained by the complainant. All the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. He has sought for compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the opposite parties 1 to 3 and also a direction to stop legal proceedings initiated by the 4th opposite party, the officer of the bank. The 1st opposite party insurer has contended that they immediately arranged the survey of the damaged vehicle and as suggested by the complainant approved the 2nd party for effecting repairs. The 1st opposite party had also contacted the 2nd opposite party and agreed to pay the repairing charges. 1st opposite party has disclaimed liability . 3. The 2nd opposite party has admitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repairs and the estimate for the work was for a sum of Rs.1,51,985. The surveyor assessed the amount as Rs.86952/-. The surveyor has also suggested to replace the chasis frame. It was for the purchase of chasis frame from Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Pune, the manufacturer which cost a sum of Rs.30,394.75/- that the complainant was asked to pay Rs.30,000/- as advance,. Thereafter the complainant was asked an advance to start the work. As the complainant did not pay the amount the work could not be started. The complainant has been informed to pay the demerage charges at the rate of Rs.5 per day. The complainant did not respond at all. The insurance company was also informed of the situation A fresh estimate was also prepared and submitted to the insurance company through the complainant. There was no response thereafter from the complainant or the insurance company. 4. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties the authorities representing the bank have stressed that they have no responsibility. The same is the contention of the 5th opposite party the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; DWs 1 and 2 Exts.P1 to P15 D1 to D6. 6. On a consideration of the evidence adduced and the judgment of the Forum we find that no interference is called for. Evidently there is no agreement between the complainant, the workshop people and the insurer that the repair charges shall be paid directly by the insurer to the repairer. The case of the complainant that he expected the complete repairs to be done if the initial payment of Rs.10000/- is paid is nothing but absurd considering the fact that the estimate of the repairer exceeded Rs.1.5 lakhs. It appears the complainant has not taken any effective steps to see that the vehicle is repaired. The 1st opposite party Insurance company, it appears has also not taken any initiative in this regard. All the same the primary responsibility for taking steps to get the vehicle repaired is on the part of the complainant. In the circumstance we find that there is no merit in the appeal filed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
