DATE OF FILING : 23.9.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of April, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

          SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.280/2015

Between

Complainant       :    Soy Joseph,

Pedikkattukunnel House,

Pannimattam P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Party                                          :    The Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Thodupuzha Branch,

Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv:  Thomas Sebastian)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is the registered owner of a pick up van bearing Reg. No.KL/38/C/423 and this vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party for the period from 8.8.2014 to 7.8.2015.  The policy is a bumber to bumber full cover policy.  On 26.4.2015, the vehicle met with an accident resulted in heavy damages and it was entrusted for repair in Bigins auto garage, Vazhakkulam.  On intimation, the opposite party's surveyor given necessary direction to the workshopmen for the repair of the said vehicle.  Complainant has not given any direction to the workshop authority.  Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,73,286/- towards repair charges including the price of spare parts.  On submitting claim application, the insurance authorities as well as the surveyor intimated that they will met the expense.  But later on, they denied to pay the workshop bill in total.  The opposite party company granted an amount of Rs.1,40,695/- towards the insurance claim and they transferred this amount to the bank account of the complainant directly.  On receipt of the said amount, complainant 

(cont.....2)

-  2  -

approached the opposite party and demanded balance amount as per the workshop bill.  But the opposite party denied to pay the balance amount.  Complainant further stated that at the time of insuring the vehicle, opposite party made him believe that it is a full cover policy and at the time of filing any claim against this policy, they will allow all the claim amount without any deduction.  Believing these words, the complainant happened to insure his vehicle with this opposite party.  Hence the act of the opposite party in not honouring the full claim amount is a gross deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice.  Against this the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief such as to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,32,591/- being the balance repair charge along with cost and compensation.    

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In the version, opposite party contended that the policy issued to the vehicle of the complainant was a package policy, not a bumper to bumper policy.  In order to get Nil Depreciation cover policy (bumper to bumper policy) the complainant has to pay addition premium.  This policy in question is a package policy subject to depreciation stated in section 1 of the policy condition.  As per this policy insurance company will indemnify the insured against the loss or damage to the vehicle insured subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant submitted the claim form and estimate of the Bigins auto garage on 5.5.2014.  Only after that, the opposite party appointed the surveyor.  The surveyor had not given any direction to the complainant about the entrustment of the vehicle to the said workshop.  Complainant alone opted for that.  After inspection, the surveyor assessed the spare parts to be replaced and labour charges payable to repair the vehicle and the fact was informed to the manager of the workshop and he agreed to repair the vehicle as suggested.  The bills submitted by the complainant are not actual expenses to repair the vehicle and are exaggerated.

 

The opposite party further contended that the surveyor assessed the total cost of the spare parts inclusive of tax after deducting the depreciation and total charges to repair the vehicle.  The model of the vehicle is 2012 and the age of the vehicle at the time of accident is between 2 to 3 years.  As per section 1 of the conditions of policy, if the age of the vehicle exceeding 2 years, but not exceeding 3 years, the rate of depreciation of 

(cont.....3)

- 3  -

spare parts is 15%.  In the survey report, it is clearly and separately stated that  parts allowed for replacement with 0% depreciation, 15% depreciation and 50% depreciation.  The surveyor assessed the cost of the parts inclusive of tax after deducting the depreciation is Rs.1,27,222.75/- and total labour charges to repair the vehicle is Rs.21,450/-.  The labour charges claimed by the workshop is very excessive.  The complainant repaired the vehicle not in an authorised service centre of Mahindra and Mahindra.  The spare parts are not purchased from the authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra.  The price of spare parts shown in the bill subitted by the complainant is excessive than the price of authorised dealer.  So the bills cannot be accepted.  

 

Opposite party further contended that, after re-inspection of the vehicle, the claim was settled for Rs.1,41,673/- and the amount has accepted by the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim, hence he is not entitled to claim any amount in respect of this claim.  The complainant has not objected the survey report and has not demanded its copy.  Eventhough the complainant visited the office of the opposite party, several times, he never launched any complaint against the surveyor.  So there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in settling the claim.  The complainant not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of chief affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of GD entry.  Ext.P2 is the copy of policy.  Ext.P3 is the copy of RC Book.  Ext.P4 is the bills copy from the workshop.  From the opposite side, Manager of opposite party and surveyor were examined as DW1 and DW2 respectively.  Exts.R1 to R10 were marked.  Ext.R1 policy copy.  Ext.R2 claim intimation Form.  Ext.R3 claim form.  Ext.R4 estimate of labour charge.  Ext.R5 is the estimate of spare parts.  Ext.R6 is the survey report.  Ext.R7 is the re-inspection report.  Ext.R8 is  bills and Ext.R9 is tax invoice.

 

Heard both sides.

 

 

              (cont.....4)

                                     -  4  -       

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-  We have heard counsels for both sides and perused the records.  Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that if the policy is Nil Depreciation policy as stated by the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get the price of spare parts as per the bills produced by him, issued by the workshop Manager, by deducting the depreciation as per the policy conditions along with the full repair charges.  On going through the exhibits, Ext.R8(series), the bills which were produced by the complainant before the 1st opposite party along with claim form, it is seen that an amount of Rs.1,36,969/- is paid for spare parts alone.  At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that this bill is an exaggerated one, since the spar parts are not purchased from the authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra.  The price shown in the bills is excessive than the price of authorised dealer and it is specifically stated in Ext.R6 survey report.  On the basis of this submission, we perused the Ext.R6 survey report.  In its 4th page, the surveyor stated price of spare parts in detail, including the price stated in Ext.R5 bill and depreciation of each spare parts.  Surveyor further stated that the price shown in the survey report in the actual price of authorised spare parts dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra.  But for substantiating this, no corresponding evidence is produced.  Same is repeated in the matter of labour charges.  As per the Ext.R4, the labour charges claimed was Rs.72,200/-.  But the surveyor assessed the labour charges as Rs.21450/-.  But no evidence is produced by the opposite party to convince that on what basis the surveyor assessed this amount.   The learned counsel for the opposite further argued that the vehicle was entrusted and repaired at an unauthorised service centre and after inspection, the surveyor assessed the spare parts to be replaced and labour charges payable to repair the vehicle and this fact was informed to the manager of the workshop and he agreed to repair the vehicle as suggested by the surveyor.  In this matter also no piece of evidence is produced by the opposite party to contradict this contention.  On going through the records and deposition, in its totality, the Forum finds that, eventhough the opposite party refused the bills produced by the complainant along with the claim application on the reason that it is 

             (cont.....5)

-  5  -

very excessive and the vehicle was repaired in an unauthorised workshop and spare parts were also purchased from an unauthorised dealer, at the same time, opposite party settled the claim on the basis of the assessment done by the surveyor.  But they miserably failed to produce any document to convince the Forum that the assessment made by the surveyor based on some records issued by an authorised workshop or an authorised dealer.  Without having sufficient material to prove the assessment of the surveyor, the survey report cannot be acceptable as such.

 

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the complaint allowed.  The Forum directs the opposite party to pay the balance amount as per the Ext.R8 bill after deducting depreciation as stated in section 1 of the policy and also directed to pay the balance labour charges, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th  day of April, 2018

 

 

    Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

      Sd/-

                SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    (cont.....6)

-  6  -

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Soy Joseph.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  S. Manoj.

DW2              -  Santhosh P.A.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  copy of GD entry.  

Ext.P2         -  copy of policy.  

Ext.P3         -  copy of RC Book.  

Ext.P4         -  bills copy from the workshop.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1          -   Ext.R1 policy copy.  

Ext.R2       -  claim intimation Form.  

Ext.R3       -  claim form.  

Ext.R4       -  estimate of labour charge.  

Ext.R5       -  estimate of spare parts.  

Ext.R6       -  survey report.  

Ext.R7       -  re-inspection report.  

Ext.R8(series) -  bills.

Ext.R9       - tax invoice.

Ext.R10     - bills. 

 

 

        Forwarded by Order,

 

 

           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT