By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.18,045/- being the cost incurred by the complainant towards the repair of the vehicle and to pay Rs.3,432/- towards cost of installing electric post, Rs.2,000/- towards cost incurred to take the vehicle to Kozhikode work shop and to pay 12% interest for the whole amounts and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra Maxi Truck Bolero goods carrier from 2nd opposite party on November 2013. The complainant took insurance over the vehicle from 1st opposite party. The vehicle was met with an accident while the son of the complainant was driving the vehicle and damaged an electric post and the vehicle sustained damages in the left front main leaf, damaged shock absorber, mudguard, bumper, headlight, bonet etc... The coverage of the insurance was valid from 28.11.2013 to 27.11.2014. The complainant informed the accident to opposite party No.1 and as per the direction of opposite party No.1, the complainant took the vehicle to opposite party No.2. The Surveyor of opposite party No.1 inspected the vehicle and prepared report. The complainant preferred claim and opposite party No.1 promised to give claim. Opposite party No.2 instructed the complainant to take the vehicle to Kozhikode Nadakavu workshop and the complainant took the vehicle to Kozhikode Nadakavu workshop. Opposite party No.1's surveyor again inspected the vehicle from Kozhikode and informed the complainant that they are not in a position to give claim. Opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.25,000/- for repair. So the complainant took the vehicle to Kalpetta Soumya Motors and repaired. The complainant incurred labour charges Rs.18,000/- for repair. The complainant incurred Rs.3,432/- for replacing electric post. The complainant spend Rs.2,000/- towards cost for taking the vehicle to Kozhikode workshop. The act of opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence filed this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, 1st opposite party admitted the insurance of the vehicle owned by complainant. But 1st opposite party denied the allegation that the vehicle met with an accident on 02.05.2014 and an electric post is damaged. The allegation of the complainant that the accident is informed to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 instructed the complainant to take the vehicle to 2nd opposite party etc are denied by 1st opposite party. All other material allegation are denied by 1st opposite party. This 1st opposite party was not informed the accident. The 2nd opposite party in the version stated that the complaint is barred by limitation. 2nd opposite party denied all other material allegations in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party is not a party to the contract between the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
4. On perusing the complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Opposite party No.2 is examined as OPW2 and Ext.A6 is marked after confronting OPW2. In the cross-examination of complainant, complainant deposed that after accident, it was informed to Meppadi Police and police registered FIR. copy of FIR is not produced. He deposed that the accident was informed to Bolero company and he do not know whether Bolero company informed the matter to the insurance company or not. The complainant deposed that he never gave claim form to insurance company. The case of opposite party No.1 is that opposite party No.1 did not get opportunity to inspect the vehicle with a Surveyor. The complainant deposed that the complainant did not informed the opposite party No.1 directly about the accident. When the complainant informed the accident to opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 has to give insurance claim, not the opposite party No.2. But opposite party No.1 is unaware of the accident and no claim form raised. The complainant failed to produce the FIR before the Forum. So the Forum found that the complainant failed to prove the accident and also failed to prove that the accident is duly informed to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 have no legal liability to inform the accident to opposite party No.1. Hence the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2. The point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2015.
Date of Filing:05.06.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Abdulkareem. E. K. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Rinu Aswas. Senior Executive, Bajaj Allaianz General Insurance
Company.
OPW2. Vinayan. K. C. Senior Manager, ITL Motors Kakkavayal.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A2. Copy of Certificate cum Policy Schedule.
A3(Series). (a). Receipt. dt:03.05.2014.
(b). Receipt. dt:03.05.2014.
(c). Receipt. dt:03.05.2014.
A4. Cash Invoice. dt:06.05.2014.
A5(Series). (a). Cash Bill. dt:05.05.2014.
(b). Cash Bill. dt:05.05.2014.
A6. Notice. dt:07.05.2014.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Duplicate copy of Certificate cum Policy Schedule.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
