D.O.F:26/04/2020
D.O.O:30/11/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.85/2017
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Anuradha Rai, aged 38 years
W/o Sanjeeva Rai
Kappihitlu Compound , Anangoor,
Kasaragod – Post
: Complainant
Represented by her husband
Sanjeeva Rai
Kappihitlu Compound , Anangoor,
Kasaragod – Post
(Adv: P. Padmanabha)
And
1. The Manager
Indus Motor Co. Pvt Ltd,
Bindu Shoba Arcade
Ashwini Nagar Kasaragod.
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110070. : Opposite Parties
(Adv:K.V. Ramachandran & Anto Thomas)
3. Maruti Insurance broking Pvt Ltd
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi
(Adv: Shrikanta Shetty)
4. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yenwade, Pune 411006
(Adv: Annamma John.V)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The instant complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended ).
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a Maruthi Swift Dzire Car on 05.01.2015 from Opposite Party No.1 , paying a total of Rs .7,39,256/- including show room price of car Rs.6,74,031/- insurance premium Rs.22,655/- , road tax+ TP +and handIing charges Rs.60,472/-. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer, the Opposite Party No. 3 is the insurance broker and Opposite Party No. 4 is the insurer of the car. The Opposite Parties introduced that the insurance policy is bumber to bumber and stated that in case of any accident or any claim, the Opposite Parties will repair and restore the vehicle without any amount. Believing the words of Opposite Parties the complainant opted for that particular Insurance policy and paid Rs.22, 653/- as premium .The Vehicle met with an accident on 01-12-2016 and the same was taken to show room of Opposite Party No.1, by towing. While accepting the vehicle, Opposite Party No .1 promised that it would be repaired and returned within 2 weeks and since the vehicle is covered with Bumber to bumber insurance policy, arrangements for availing the claim would be done and complainant need not pay any amount .Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 for the vehicle but he was sent back with untenable reasons . Due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle by the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered great inconveniences and mental agony apart from financial loss. Hence the complaint was filed with prayer for directing the Opposite Parties for return the vehicle after repair without demanding any charge and to pay compensation and costs. The complainant further submitted by way of an amendment application that after filing of this complaint on 24-04-2017, the Opposite Party No.1 delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 27.04.2017 with a demand of Rs. 16,000/- towards repair charges and the complainant paid the amount to avoid further delay.
The Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed written statement. As per the version of Opposite Party No. 1, the complaint is false, frivolus, vexatious, and not maintainable on law or facts. The OPNo.1 admitted the purchase of the vehicle and receipt of payments. But deny all other averments. It is submitted that the complainant entrusted the vehicle on 02-12-2016 for repair, subsequent to a major accident. There was delay from insurance department to approve the work. The reason for delay for approving was related to repair cost and IDV of vehicle insurer. The cost of estimated repair was very high. Finally the insurance company gave approval to start the repair work after 58 days from the vehicle reported. When the Opposite Party No .1 started work on 30 - 1 - 2017, the body shell was not available and it took some more time to get that spare part. The total IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,39,225/- and the work bill amount to Rs.4,08,515/- But the insurance company approved only Rs.3,85,000/- .So there was a difference of Rs.23,515/- An amount of Rs. 16,000/- was given as discount to the complainant. Since the vehicle was not possible with in 1 month, the Opposite Party No.1 supplied a vehicle to complainant for her personal use free of cost.
The Opposite Party No.1 did not receive any handling charge or premium amount for extended warranty from the complainant. No service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1and no mental agony caused to the complainants. The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed. After amendment of the complaint as per the I A No.86/2018, the Opposite Party No.1 filed additional version denying the statement of the complainant that they had demanded Rs.16,000/- as repair charge and complainant was constrained to pay Rs.16,000/- to delivery of the vehicle without further delay.
As per the version of Opposite Party No.2, the complaint is without any cause of action against Opposite Party No.2,. No any specific allegation and no service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
As per the Version of Opposite Party No. 3, the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and liable to be dismissed. The role of insurance broking is to customers about the features and benefit of Motor insurance companies and after that there is no role .The Insurance companies are solely accountable for claim settlement. No service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.3. The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
As per the version of Opposite Party No.4, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Opposite Party No.4 admits the issuance of policy to the complainant. But it was not bumber -to-bumber as stated in complaint. The policy was Depreciation shield & Plan Description. The total premium collected was Rs.15,313/- and not Rs.22,653/-. The Opposite Party No.4 never collected any amount illegally from the complainant and not Iiable for any amount collected by Opposite Party No.1. It is averred that there was no service deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part. In this case the Opposite Party No.4 deputed a Surveyor to verify and assess the alleged Ioss and accordingly he assessed damage to the extent of Rs.3,89,923/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The liability of the Opposite Parties will not be more than loss assessed by IRDA licensed surveyor. The Opposite Party No.4 had already settled the claim to the repairer as per the Surveyor's assessment, by paying Rs.3,89,923/- on 31.03.2017. There is no service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.4.The complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and marked documents as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A3. The Ext - A1 is the Authorization Letter issued by complainant. Ext A 2 is the copy of Profoma/ Invoice issued by Opposite Party No.1, Ext. A3 is the copy of Policy Certificate PW 1 was cross examined by Opposite Party No 1 and Opposite Party No.4. From the side of Opposite Parties, no oral evidence is adduced. The Opposite Party No.4 produced certain documents which are marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is the Transcript of proposal for private car - package policy, Ext B2 is the Claim payment approval form, Ext. B3 is the invoice issued by Indus Motors Private Ltd.(OPNo.1) Ext. B4 is the Surveyor's Report.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
- whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that her vehicle which was entrusted with Opposite Party No.1 for repair after accident was not returned after repairing at promised time and there was inordinate delay. The Vehicle was received on 02-12 - 2016 with a promise that it would be returned within 2 weeks. But the Vehicle was returned only on 27.4.2017 after filing of this complaint dated 24.04.2017. The vehicle had bumber -to-bumber insurance policy but the Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.16,000/- and to avoide further delay the complainant paid the same. These are all amount to service deficiency due to which complainant suffered mental agony and hardships as well as monetary loss.
The Opposite Party No.1 would argue that there was delay from insurance department to approve the work. The reason for delay for approving was related to repair cost and IDV of vehicle insurer. The cost of estimated repair was very high. Finally the insurance company gave approval to start the repair work after 58 days from the vehicle reported. When the Opposite Party No .1 started work on 30 - 1 - 2017, the body shell was not available and it took some more time to get that spare part. The total IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,39,225/- and the work bill amount to Rs.4,08,515/- But the insurance company approved only Rs.3,85,000/- .So there was a difference of Rs.23,515/- An amount of Rs. 16,000/- was given as discount to the complainant. Since the vehicle was not possible with in 1 month, the Opposite Party No.1 supplied a vehicle to complainant for her personal use free of cost. The Opposite Party No.1 did not receive any handling charge or premium amount for extended warranty from the complainant. No service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1and no mental agony caused to the complainants. Here the role of the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 are limited and it seems that are made party as a formality. No specific allegation against them.
The Opposite Party No. 4 states that the insurance policy of the complainant's vehicle was not bumber -to-bumber as stated in complaint. The policy was Depreciation Shield & Plan Description. The total premium collected was Rs .15,313/- and not Rs.22,653/-. The Opposite Party No.4 never collected any amount illegally from the complainant and not Iiable for any amount collected by Opposite Party No.1. It is averred that there was no service deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part. In this case the Opposite Party No.4 deputed a surveyor to verify and assess the alleged Ioss and accordingly he assessed damage to the extent of Rs.3,89,923/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The liability of the Opposite Parties will not be more than loss assessed by IRDA licensed surveyor. The Opposite Party No.4 had already settled the claim to the repairer as per the Surveyor's assessment, by paying Rs.3,89,923/- on 31.03.2017.
The Opposite Party No.1 state that finally the insurance company gave approval to start the repair work after 58 days from the vehicle reported. When the Opposite Party No .1 started work on 30 - 1 - 2017. But the vehicle was delivered only on 27.04 2017. The reason stated for the delay is that the body shell was not available and it took some more time to get that spare part. But there is no evidence adduced for that. There is no detail to show that how long such a spare part was unavailable. The complainant further submit that they had scheduled a family trip during Christmas vacation and requested to deliver the vehicle before that and Opposite Party No.1 agreed for that. The vehicle was delivered on 27.4.2017, after 5 months. The Opposite Party No.1 contented that since the vehicle was not possible to return within 1 month, they supplied a vehicle to complainant for her personal use free of cost. But Opposite Party No.1 did not adduce any evidence for that. Not furnished the details of that vehicle.
The Opposite Party No.1 argue that the repair work bill amount to Rs.4,08,515/-. But the insurance company approved only Rs.3, 85,000/- .So there was a difference of Rs.23,515/- An amount of Rs. 16,000/- was given as discount to the complainant.
The document Ext. B3 ,the Invoice dated 22.03 .2017, produced by Opposite Party No .4, would show that actual repair work bill is for a total amount of Rs.4,08,515/-
The complainant has no dispute over that. Also it is stated by the Opposite Party No.4 that they have paid Rs.3,89,923/- only on 31.03.2017.
The Document Ext. B4, the Survey Report would show that the surveyor submitted the report on 24-12-2017, that is within 22 days of entrustment of work. But the Opposite Party No.1 says that the Opposite Party No.4 sanctioned approval for the work after 58 days. That aspect is not disputed by the Opposite Party No.4. The Opposite Party No.4 didn't explain any reason for such an inordinate delay. So there is negligence and service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.4.
Even though the account has been settled by the Opposite Party No.4 on 31.03.2017 itself , the Opposite Party No.1 gave the delivery of the Vehicle after repair only on 27.04.2017 . So there is service deficiency and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
Regarding payment of the repair charge the complainant did not produce any document. Even though he averred that the Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.16,000/- for delivery of the Vehicle and to avoid further delay the complainant paid the same , he did not produce the receipt or any such document to prove that aspect.
But the Document Ext .A 2 shows that the Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.22, 653/- towards the insurance. But the Opposite Party No.4 would state that only Rs.15, 313/- was collected by them towards insurance premium. So there is an excess amount of Rs .7,340/- in that account which shows the unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1.
So considering the evidence available in this case this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. and Opposite Party No 4 . Due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and several hardships as well as monetary loss.
As regards to allegations against Opposite Party No .2 and 3 , there is no evidence to hold that there is any negligence or service deficiency on their part in this case.
The complainant estimate his loss to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/-
But there is no details for that. This commission is holds that a total amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) would be a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 are jointly directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards the compensation and a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Authorization letter
A2- Copy of profoma/Invoice
A3- copy of policy certificate
B1- Transcript of proposal for private car –Package policy
B2- Claim payment approval form
B3- Invoice
B4- Final survey report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sanjeeva Rai
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
