Date of filing    :  25-03-2013

                                                                     Date of order   :  25-06-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.105/2013

                      Dated this, the   25^th   day of  June   2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

Deepak Kumar, S/o.Divakaran Nair.E,                : Complainant

R/at Mundath House, Balal.Po,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv.Mohanan Nambiar.M, Kasaragod)

1 The Manager,                                                        : Opposite parties

    Pace Motors, Kovval Palli, Kanhangad,

    Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod.

(Adv.Madhavan Malankad, Kasaragod)

2 The Branch Manager,

    National Insurance Company Ltd,

    High Lane Plaza, MG Road, Kasaragod.

(Adv.M.Balagopalan, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER

            The gist of the complaint of Sri. Deepak Kumar is that he is a Plus two student of Adhoor   Engineering College.  For the conveyance facility he   purchased  Honda CB shine motor cycle on 18-12-2012 from opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 insured the vehicle for Rs.56,819/- and the policy No. is 571100/31/12/62000018045.  On 10-01-2013 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and caused damage to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.  Complainant informed the accident to opposite parties 1 & 2.  Both opposite parties represented the complainant that the vehicle will be repaired and returned back to the complainant within 10 days.  Eventhough the complainant and his father   enquired the vehicle several times opposite parties reluctant to repair   vehicle.  So the complainant was constrained to hire a bike for reaching school.  The complainant on 16-02-2013 caused   to sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties for which opposite partyNo.2 blamed the complainant.

2.         Adv. Madhavan Malankad filed vakalath and version for opposite   party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 admits the purchase of motor cycle by the complainant and the vehicle was brought for repairs to show room.  Opposite party No.1 denies that the complainant and his father went to the office of  opposite party several times for enquiry.  It is also denied that any dead line was given as 10 days for repair of the vehicle.  It is further denied that the manager blamed the complainant for sending a lawyer notice or replied that let us seen in court.  It is denied that opposite parties are liable to return the value of the vehicle to the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 further denied that the services rendered to the complainant by opposite parties are deficient or he suffered great mental agony, stress and strain or financial loss of Rs.7000/- or opposite parties are liable to compensate the same.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1.

3.         Adv. M.Balagopalan filed vakalath and version for opposite party No.2.  According to opposite party No.2 the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL.60E 8206 was validly insured at the time of accident. But they denied the damage due to accident was to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and the complainant had informed the company immediately after the accident.

4.         Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Exts A1 to A8 marked.  Opposite party No.2 filed Exts B1 to B6 marked.  The questions raised for consideration are:-

1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2 If so what is the relief?

5.    Issue No.1:  Opposite party No.1 admits the purchase of the vehicle by complainant  bearing Reg.No.KL 60E 8206 and opposite party No.2 admits that the vehicle was validly insured at the time of accident.

The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 10-01-2013 while the complainant was riding it and caused damage.  Complainant informed the accident to opposite parties 1 & 2 and entrusted the vehicle to opposite party No.1 for repair as informed   by opposite party No.2 that the company had tied up service with opposite party No.1.  Ext.A1 is the slip issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant at the time of entrustment (11-01-2013) of the vehicle for repair.  As per Ext.A1 the estimated delivery time is 21-01-2013, after 10 days of entrustment. Ext.A2 is the copy of the policy.  Ext.A3 is the registration certificate.  Complainant caused a lawyer notice to opposite party No.1 on 16-02-2013 which is Ext.A4.  After filing the complaint opposite party No.1 repaired the vehicle, after  long  delay.  Ext.A7 is the copy of the bill.  Ext.A8 is the certificate issued by College of Engineering Adhoor, that the complainant is a student of their institution for 1^st year B.Tech course in Mechanical Engineering during the academic year 2013-2014. Ext.A7 invoice is issued on 4-4-2013, shows the vehicle after repair delivered  to the complainant on 4-4-2013.  This complaint is filed on 25-03-2013.  After getting notice from this Forum, opposite party No.1   repaired and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 4-4-2013.  The lethargic attitude of opposite parties  No.1& 2 constrained the complainant to file this complaint.  Moreover, the complainant is a student of Engineering College Adhoor, which situates in a remote area.  Conveyance facility to that area is very limited.  In such a situation, the negligence shown by opposite parties 1 & 2  amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The case of the complainant tallies with the documents produced before the Forum.  Complainant as a student has no other option other than hiring a vehicle to attend his regular classes. Due to the act of opposite parties the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony.  Opposite party No.2 contents that the complainant has reported the claim very late i.e. only on 17-01-2013, the insurance surveyor assessed the loss on 20-04-2013 as per Ext.B3.  Even after informing them they took 4 months delay in assessing the loss, then how can they raise such a contention.  If there is no deficiency in service on their part, such a delay wouldn’t have occurred.  There is deficiency in service on the side of both opposite parties. They are bound to compensate the loss and mental agony of the complainant.

6.     The  complainant has no case that the surveyor under valued.   Thereby complainant is accepting the assessment of the insurance surveyor.  EVenthough the complainant claimed Rs.7000/- as rent for hired vehicle for 2 months, he failed to produce documentary evidence for the same.  So we declined to accept his claim in that head.  r.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.6454/- being repair charges and opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- with a cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.   Failing    which necessary orders will pass on an application by the complainant.

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Photocopy of Customer’s Copy/Gate pass.

A2. Copy of insurance certificate

A3. Copy of RC.KL-60-E-8206

A4. 16-02-2013 Copy of lawyer notice.

A5 & A6. Postal acknowledgement cards

A7. Copy of Invoice.

A8. 12-11-2013 Certificate issued by College of Engineering, Adoor to complainant.

B1. Copy of Motor claim form

B2. Copy of Motor Claim intimation form.

B3.Copy of Private and confidential Motor Final Survey Report.

B4. Letter issued by National Insurance Co.Ltd.

B5. Postal acknowledgement

B6. Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Scheme.

PW1. Deepak Kumar.