By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-73-A-7835 and it was insured with Opposite Party under bumper to bumper policy. Within the validity of the said policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2018 and got damages. On intimation and as per the instruction from Opposite Party, the vehicle was repaired from Megha Motors at Sulthan Bathery. The Complainant obtained the vehicle back on 27.10.2018 after remitting an amount of Rs.9,245/-. Thereafter, he presented a claim form and three months thereafter, the Opposite Party paid only Rs.7,400/- on 20.03.2019. Even though, the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.9,245/-, the Opposite Party has only given Rs.7,400/-. They have also caused delay for the payment. So, there is deficiency in their service. Hence, this complaint to get the balance of Rs.1,845/- with 12% interest, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The Opposite Party filed version which in short as follows:- They admitted that the Complainant is the owner of the M/C bearing Registration No. KL-73-A-7835 and it was insured with the Opposite Party. They have also admitted the accident. The total labour charge as per estimate is Rs.1,350/- and the bill shows the labour charge was Rs.1,450/-. The bill amount shall not be higher than estimate. If, any claim preferred for excess labour charge, an additional estimate is mandatory. The Complainant did not submit any additional estimate for the same. The Surveyor assessed the loss payable as Rs.7,400/-. He deducted Rs.120.60/- towards GST, Rs.205/- towards salvage and Rs.100/- towards policy excess. The labour charge fixed as Rs.670/- after the discussion and negotiation with the service centre by the Surveyor and if they charge more from the Complainant, he has to proceed against the workshop owner. Therefore, the Opposite Party has given Rs.7,400/- to the Complainant. So, there is no deficiency on their service. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get anything more from the Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite
Party?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1 Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 to B4. Both sides heard.
6. Point No.1:- Admittedly the Opposite Party as the insurance company is liable to pay insurance amount to the Complainant as the owner of KL-73-A-7835, motorcycle which was met with an accident on 22.10.2018. The claim of the Complainant is that he is entitled to get Rs.9,245/- ie towards the value of the spare parts and labour charge. The grievance of the Complainant is that even then, Opposite Party has given only Rs.7,400/- that too after three months. According to them, thus, there is deficiency in service on Opposite Party. On the other hand, according to Opposite Party, they have given Rs.7,400/- to the Complainant as assessed by their Surveyor considering the value of spare parts as Rs.6,950/- and labour charge as Rs.670/- and deducting GST of Rs.125.60/-, Salvage of Rs.205/- and excess of Rs.100/-.
7. To prove the case of Complainant, he has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the Bill received by him from the Megha Motors who repaired the vehicle. To disprove the case of Complainant, Opposite Party examined their Branch Manager as OPW1. According to Opposite Party, the Complainant has produced the estimate only for Rs.1,350/- and subsequently he produced Ext. A1 bill which contains Rs.1,450/- as labour charge. According to them, without any additional estimate, the Complainant is not entitled to get anything more. The difference is only Rs.100/-. The Opposite Party has not produced any scrap of paper to prove that a party is not entitled to claim more than the estimated amount without producing an additional estimate. The Opposite Party accepted the report of their surveyor. Ext.B4 is the Survey Report. It is to be noted from Ext.B4 that the surveyor allowed labour charge as Rs.670/-. But, as per Ex.tA1 bill, the labour charge is noted as Rs.1,450/-. The surveyor is not mentioned the reason for not allowing Rs.1,450/-. The Opposite Party contented that the labour charge fixed into Rs.670/- only after the discussion and negotiation with service centre by the Surveyor and if service centre charged more amount, the Complainant has to proceed with workshop owner. This contention of Opposite Party cannot be accepted because here absolutely there are no materials to show that the surveyor done a negotiation with service centre in the presence of Complainant and he fixed the labour charge as Rs.670/- after the consent of the Complainant. Here, evidently the labour charge is Rs.1,450/-. So, since the policy is bumper to bumper policy, the Opposite Party cannot ignore the labour charge noted in Ext.A1 without the consent of the Complainant, because he paid this amount to the service centre. It can also be seen that the Surveyor allowed less value for the spare parts to which there is no material to show that he deducted such and such amount for a valid reason. The surveyor deducted salvage value of Rs.205/. Ext.B1 is the policy which does not contain that the Opposite Party is entitled to get salvage value. Therefore, it is evident that the Opposite Party is entitled to deduct only policy excess and GST @ 18%. So they are bound to give Rs. 8884/- in total to the Complainant by deducting Rs. 100/- towards excess and Rs. 261/- towards GST from Rs. 9245/-. Admittedly the Complainant has received Rs. 7400/. So he is entitled to get the balance of Rs. 1484/-. Since the Opposite Party has not given the eligible amount to the Complainant, there is deficiency on their service. Though the Complainant wants to get Rs.10,000/-, he is only entitled to get Rs.2,000/- towards compensation as a reasonable amount and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses because the amount of Rs.5,000/- asked by him is excessive. So the point is answered in favour of Complainant as discussed above.
8. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, he is entitled to get the reliefs as discussed above.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 1,484/- (Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Four Only) to the Complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the Complainant. Opposite Party is directed to comply this Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of November 2022.
Date of Filing:-29.11.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Poulose. K. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Rema. K. S. Branch Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. Dt:27.10.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Motorcycle/Scooter Package Policy for the period of 04.12.2019 to
03.12.2020.
B2. Claim Intimation. Dt:25.10.2018.
B3. Motor Claim Form.
B4. Private and Confidential Motor (Preliminary/Final) Survey Report.
Dt:28.11.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
