KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.351/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.07.2011

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

R. George Pareira

Managing Partner

M/s George Micheal Associates

Tutors Lane, Statue, Residing at

T.C. 13/109, Pettah P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 24.

(Rep. by Adv. Smt. Elizabeth Emmanuel)

Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.                The Manager

T.V. Sundaram Iyerger & Sons Ltd.

Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 40.

2.                The Divisional Manager

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Do IT, Malankara Buildings

Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram – 34.

(Adv. for R1 Smt. S. Laila
&  R2  Sri. M. Nizamudeen)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant in OP.539/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complaint stands dismissed.

2.      It is the case of the complainant that the UNO Diesel car owned by him met with an accident on 11/4/2001 and the vehicle was repaired at the service centre of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party/insurer reimbursed the cost of repairs and the vehicle was delivered after repairs on 28/4/2001.  According to the complainant after he took the vehicle he went to Madras for business purposes and returned only on 8/5/2001.  On the same day when the driver took the vehicle from the garage it was found the steering was stuck and the vehicle was taken to the 1^st opposite party’s workshop.  For repairing the same he had to pay a sum of Rs.23,767/-.  The 1^st opposite party and the complainant had intimated the 2^nd opposite party/insurance company to assess the damages which was occasioned on account of the accident that took place on 11/4/2001 and omitted to be noted by the 1^st opposite party/service outfit.  The claim was repudiated.

3.      The 1^st opposite party has filed version that the internal defect of the steering assembly was omitted to be noted. There was oil leak from the steering assembly and that it was detected subsequently.

4.      The 2^nd opposite party has contended that with respect to the repairs consequent on the accident a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid in full and final discharge of the claims.  Hence the 2^nd claim was repudiated.

5.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 to P16 and D1 to D9.

6.      We find that the case of the complainant that after taking possession of the vehicle on 28/4/2001 the vehicle was taken out only on 8/5/2001 stands not disproved.  The complainant was not cross-examined. The fact that the complainant has made the claim and the 1^st opposite party has forwarded the claim and admitted that the defect could not be noted in the vehicle when it was repaired at first after the accident is supported by the documents produced by the complainant ie Ext.P8.  The fact that the 2^nd opposite party/insurance company did not make any inspection of the vehicle so as to ascertain whether the damage to the vehicle was the result of the accident is relevant.  There is no explanation for the above omission.  All the same there is lapse on the part of the complainant also as he ought to have examined the vehicle properly after taking possession of the same from the workshop.  No objective evidence has been produced to establish the fact that he was away at Madras for 10 days.  In the circumstances we direct that the 2^nd opposite party shall pay only 50% of the amount spent by the complainant for the repairs effected vide Ext.P10 cash bill.  Which is for a sum of Rs.22,767/-. The 2^nd opposite party shall pay 50% of the above amount.  The amount is to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 19/7/2011, the date of this order.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

­

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU  :   PRESIDENT

VL.