Date of Filing: 25-06-2012
Date of Disposal: 18-06-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Wednesday, the 18th day of June, 2014
C.C.NO.29/2012
Between:
V.Sreekanth Reddy
S/o V.Pulla Reddy
Parasannayapalli Village
Raptadu Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Saptagiri Circle, Subash Road
- The Authorized Signatory,
Prani Auto Plaza Private Limited
TOR Towers, Obula Reddy Nagar
N.H. 7 Bypass Road
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu and Sri K.Jagadeeswar Reddy, advocates for the complainant and Sri D.Rajasekhar Gowd, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri A.M.Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate for 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.6,81,775/- towards the cost of the car and the advance amount paid by the complainant towards repairs with interest @ 12% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.75,000/- towards hiring charges for 3 months and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is the owner of the car bearing No.AP-02-AG-6184 TATA Indica DLS V2 Car, which was purchased for a sum of Rs.4,54,775/- from Tata Motors Showroom, Ananthapuramu on 30-12-2010. The complainant insured the car with the 1st opposite party on 30-12-2010 by paying premium of Rs.11,866/- under policy bearing No.25041031106120040667 which was valid from 30-12-2010 to 29-12-2011. Subsequently, the said car was involved in an accident on 16-05-2011 near Kalluru Village, Garladinne Mandal and the car was damaged but none were injured. A case was registered by Garladinne P.S. Immediately after the accident, the complainant informed the 1st opposite party about the accident and spot surveyor was appointed by the 1st opposite party and spot survey was conducted. Later the said vehicle was brought to the 2nd opposite party workshop for repairs. The 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party inspected the damaged vehicle and prepared the estimate for the repair of the car @ Rs.2,91,710-34. The 2nd opposite party requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as advance to repair the vehicle and on their request the complainant paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the 2nd opposite party on 06-07-2011. Later a bill was prepared by the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party paid an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- to the 2nd opposite party on 13-03-2012. After that the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party and asked to deliver the vehicle and also to return the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- paid by him as the 1st opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- towards the repairs. The 2nd opposite party refused to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and also refused to return the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- paid by the complainant.
3. The complainant was using the said car for his day-today works and as his car was with the 2nd opposite party, he was forced to take a car for rent on daily basis of Rs.1,000/- per day. The complainant has to suffer mentally and financially as the 2nd opposite party did not deliver the car after necessary repairs and caused deficiency of service to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable. Further the complainant submits that though the 1st opposite party paid the estimated charges to the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party failed to deliver the car and caused inconvenience to the complainant. Then the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 09-03-2012. The 1st opposite party replied to the notice on 13-03-2012 stating that the 1st opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party did not reply to the said notice. The complainant submitted that due to non-delivery of the car, the complainant has engaged private car by paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day for 3 months and spent Rs.75,000/- for engaging the vehicle. Further the complainant submits that due to non-return of the repaired car to the complainant even after receiving repair charges from the 1st opposite party and non-return of the advance amount paid by the complainant towards repair charges with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment amounts to deficiency of service. Further the complainant submits that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,81,775/- towards the cost of the car and the advance paid by the complainant and interest on the advance of Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.75,000/- towards rent for 3 months at Rs.1,000/- per day.
4. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that it is true that the policy was issued to the complainant, which is valid from 30-12-2010 to 29-12-2011. The 1st opposite party submitted that a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- was paid to the 2nd opposite party as correct and the allegation of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- as advance towards the repair of the car was not known to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party submits that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the company paid insurance amount to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party submits that as far as the claim of the complainant is concerned, the 1st opposite party has paid as per the estimates by the 2nd opposite party and the present complaint has nothing to do with the 1st opposite party as the claim was settled by the 1st opposite party. And with regard to return of the advance amount paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, it is between the complainant and 2nd opposite party and it has nothing to do with the 1st opposite party and even the return of the repaired car is in no way connected with the 1st opposite party. It is between the complainant and 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint against the 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed with costs as there is no cause of action against the 1st opposite party.
5. Counter filed by the 2nd opposite party stating that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on his way from Ananthapuramu to Gooty and the 2nd opposite party submits that in the said accident the body of the car was damaged to a large extent and there was some internal damages also. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that the cost of the repairs were estimated to equivalent to the cost of the vehicle and the same was brought to the notice of the complainant, but he took it easily stating that he has nothing to worry as the vehicle was insured. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the amount of Rs.45,000/- was collected from the complainant as advance towards the repairs of the car and a receipt was also issued to the complainant. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that estimation towards repair charges were wrongly calculated at the first instance and it was estimated @ Rs.2,91,710/- due to error. The 2nd opposite party has wrongly calculated by mistake and the same was not brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party either by the complainant nor 1st opposite party. Later the 2nd opposite party has corrected the mistake and prepared the final tax invoice dt.28-12-2011 for Rs.4,26,295/- .The total claim amount of the 2nd opposite party is Rs.4,26,295/- and basing on the said invoice the 1st opposite party has approved the claim of the complainant and paid an amount of Rs.2,94,000/- to the 2nd opposite party.
6. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the total amount to be paid by the complainant towards repair of the vehicle is Rs.4,26,295/- and the complainant paid an advance of Rs.45,000/- on 06-07-2011 at the time of handing over the vehicle for repairs and the 1st opposite party paid Rs.2,94,000/- towards the claim and the difference amount of Rs.87,295/- has to be paid by the complainant in order to deliver the said car to the complainant. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is being the fact that the complainant has falsely filed the complaint against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.6,81,775/-. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has to pay balance amount of Rs.87,295/- within 15 days from the date of filing of the counter. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.100/- as demurrages per day for not taking delivery of the vehicle since it was repaired long back by paying the balance bill amount. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any amount towards engaging of private vehicle for Rs.75,000/- for 3 months or return the advance amount paid by the complainant and further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A9 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B3 documents.
9. Heard both sides.
10. POINT NO.1 – This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.6,81,775/- towards the cost of car and towards return of the advance amount paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party with interest and towards deficiency of service and mental agony and towards hiring charges for 3 months. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant, who is the registered owner of car bearing No.AP-02-AG-6184, has purchased the car from Tata Motors, Showroom, Ananthapuramu on 30-12-2010. The said car was insured with the 1st opposite party by paying a premium of Rs.11,866/- under policy No.25041031106120040667, which is valid from 30-12-2010 to 29-12-2011. The counsel for the complainant submitted that subsequently the said car was met with an accident near Garladinne and the vehicle was damaged but none were injured. Immediately after the accident, the complainant informed to the 1st opposite party about the accident and the 1st opposite party appointed spot surveyor, who inspected the accident spot and after inspection the said vehicle was shifted to the 2nd opposite party’s workshop. The counsel for the complainant submitted that after inspection of the damaged vehicle and after estimating the damaged parts, the surveyor of the 1st opposite party and personnel of 2nd opposite party estimated the repair charges @ Rs.2,91,710-34. The counsel for the complainant submitted that after preparing estimates, the 2nd opposite party requested the complainant to pay an advance amount to undertake the repairs of the damaged car and on their request the complainant paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the 2nd opposite party on 06-07-2011.
11. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the 1st opposite party had paid a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- to the 2nd opposite party after informing to the complainant on 13-03-2012. Then the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party and requested to deliver the vehicle and return the advance amount paid by the complainant for which the 2nd opposite party has refused to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and also to return the advance amount of Rs.45,000/- . Further the counsel submitted that the complainant was using the said car for his day-today business work and as the 2nd opposite party has not delivered his car after due repairs, the complainant has to engage a private car on rental basis of Rs.1,000/- per day for 3 months. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the non-delivery of the complainant’s car after due repairs and after receiving the estimated amount by the 2nd opposite party shows the deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the removed spare parts of his car were not given to the complainant and further the 2nd opposite party has demanded to pay an additional amount towards repair of the car as the amount paid by the 1st opposite party was less than the total repair charges involved against the repairs. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that due to non-delivery of the car by the 2nd opposite party the complainant has to suffer mentally and financially as the complainant has purchased the car by paying a sum of Rs.4,54,775/- for his day-today usage and also paid an advance of Rs.45,000/- towards the repairs of the car. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that even after completion of the repairs, the car was not handed over to the complainant and he was forced to engage a private car for his day-today works at Rs.1,000/- per day for a period of 3 months from 01-03-2012 to 05-06-2012 (i.e. Rs.75,000/-). Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that as the 2nd opposite party has not delivered the car, the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the cost of the car including the amount of advance paid towards repairs with interest from the date of payment and also to pay the hiring charges of Rs.75,000/- for 3 months and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony.
12. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that after receiving claim forms from the complainant the same was scrutinized and settled the payment to the 2nd opposite party by informing to the complainant and paid a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- as full and final settlement. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the advance payment of Rs.45,000/- to the 2nd opposite party and it is a transaction which took between the complainant and 2nd opposite party. Hence, the 1st opposite party is not at all concerned with this complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party as the 1st opposite party has settled the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy.
13. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is true that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards advance for the repairs to be undertaken for his car. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that they have prepared an estimate after inspection and the estimate was for a sum of Rs.2,91,710-34 on 28-06-2011. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted after receiving advance from the complainant the 2nd opposite party has undertaken the repair works to the complainant’s car and completed the repairs. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that by oversight the personnel of 2nd opposite party has not added the cost of the body-shell which was totally damaged, which costs about Rs.1,26,403/-. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the revised estimate was given to the complainant and the same was forwarded to the 1st opposite party and after scrutiny the 1st opposite party has sanctioned the claim after deducting depreciation from the revised estimates and paid a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that certain rubber and glass parts are not covered by insurance and the same will not be paid by the Insurance Company/1st opposite party and the same should be borne by the complainant. Hence the difference of amount should be borne by the complainant after deducting the payment made by the 1st opposite party. The advance paid by the complainant is also taken into consideration and balance amount of Rs.87,295/- is to be paid by the complainant in order to deliver the car and further the counsel argued that demurrages also should be borne by the complainant at Rs.100/- per day.
14. After hearing the arguments of both sides counsel and perusing the documents and considering the arguments of the 1st opposite party that the 1st opposite party is in no way concerned to this complaint as the 1st opposite party has already paid the claim amount after deducting depreciation as per the terms and conditions of the policy and with regard to the advance amount paid by the complainant, the 1st opposite party is in no way concerned to the transaction and it is between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party to settle. We are satisfied with the arguments. Hence the 1st opposite party has not caused any deficiency of service and he is no way liable to the complainant.
15. As per the arguments of the complainant, the claim made by the complainant that the actual cost of the car i.e. Rs.4,54,775/- is to be paid by the 2nd opposite party cannot be considered as the cost of the car is paid by the complainant at the time of purchase and after accident the car was damaged for which estimate was prepared by the 2nd opposite party and repaired by the 2nd opposite party. The cost of the car cannot be claimed as it is the property of the complainant, which is lying at the hands of the 2nd opposite party. Further the arguments of the complainant that he has paid advance of Rs.45,000/-, which is to be returned to the complainant also cannot be considered as total claim amount will not be paid by the Insurance Company as some parts (rubber, glass and other parts) will not be covered under Insurance and they should be borne by the complainant himself. Further the 1st opposite party will deduct depreciation from the cost of the spare parts and that is also should be borne by the complainant himself. In the above circumstances, the advance amount paid by the complainant and the claim amount paid by the 1st opposite party is added and deducted from the total repair cost and the balance amount which is in excess is to be borne by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further the arguments of the complainant’s counsel that he had spent a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards rent for engaging car for a period of 3 months also cannot be considered as it is at the discretion of the complainant whether to hire the car or not to meet his day-today works. And if the complainant has paid the balance amount to the 2nd opposite party, there is absolutely no necessity to hire a car by the complainant. It is only after taking permission from the complainant, the 2nd opposite party has completed the repairs as per the 2nd estimate and a bill is also prepared as per the 2nd estimate.
16. Considering the arguments of the complainant’s counsel and 2nd opposite party with regard to deficiency of service, we are of the view that immediately after undertaking the repairs, the 2nd opposite party has prepared a bill and forwarded it to the complainant, which was in turn forwarded to the 1st opposite party and a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- was paid by the 1st opposite party and balance amount is to be paid by the complainant himself. With regard to difference of amount from the first estimate and revised estimate, there is a difference of Rs.74,391/-. It is only after considering the second estimate the 1st opposite party has settled the claim for a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- as the first estimate was only for a sum of Rs.2,91,710-34. Hence the arguments of the complainant that the opposite party has caused deficiency of service and they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,81,775/- cannot considered as the complainant has failed to prove his version. Hence, we are of the view that the complainant is at liberty to take delivery of the car after paying the necessary dues to the 2nd opposite party.
17. POINT NO. 2 - In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 18th day of June, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Photo copy of invoice dt.30-12-2010 for Rs.4,54,775/- issued by the 2nd
opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Insurance Policy bearing No.25041031106120040667 issued by
1st opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of Certificate issued by the Station House Officer, Garladinne
with regard to damage of the car in the accident.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Motor Claim Form submitted by the complainant to the 1st
Opposite party.
Ex.A5 – Photo copy of estimation for spare parts dt.28-06-2011 issued by the 2nd
Opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6 - Photo copy of receipt dt.06-07-2011 for Rs.45,000/- issued by the 2nd opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A7 - Office copy of the legal notice dt.09-03-2012 got issued by the complainant
to the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A8 - Postal acknowledgements signed by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties.
Ex.A9 - Reply notice dt.13-03-2012 got issued by the 1st opposite party to counsel for
the complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Ex.B1 – Tax Invoice dt.28-1-22011 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2 - Private and Confidential Motor Survey Report Final dt.02-01-2012 submitted by
Sri V.M.Abu, Engineer & Surveyor to the opposite parties.
Ex.B3 - Estimation of spare parts dt.13-07-2011 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
Complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
