IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of March, 2017
Filed on 01.07.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.202/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Prasad Chandran 1. The Manager, Focus Motors
Radha Prasadam KMC – 7/824, Idasseri Junction
Eerezha Thekku Kottukulangara, Kayamkulam
Chettikulangara P.O.
Mavelikara 2. The Works Manager, Focus Service
(By Adv. Reshu) Industrial Estate, Kollakadavu
Mavelikara
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan – for
opposite parties 1 and 2)
3. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, Peninsula Park
Nicholes Piramal Tower, 5th Floor
Kadar Marg, Lower Parel
Mumbai – 400 613
(By Adv. P.K. Mathew)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had purchased Tata IRIS Auto Taxi from the first opposite party for his livelihood on 7.8.2013 and was insured with the Tata AIG the 3rd opposite party. On 12.2.2014 the said vehicle happened hit a electric post and due to the accident certain damages sustained to the vehicle. Complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairing the damages. On the basis of the assurance given by the 2nd opposite party, complainant remitted an amount of Rs.9,725/- in favour of KSEB for the damages to the electric post and entrusted the receipt with the 2nd opposite party. Complainant paid Rs.7,140/- to the 2nd opposite party towards the repairing charge, but the complainant received the vehicle only after the lapse of 35 days. The inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties in carrying out the repairs to the vehicle caused much financial loss and inconvenience to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is as follows:-
The complainant is not a consumer. Complainant brought the vehicle to the work shop of the opposite parties on 12.2.2014 for attending to certain accident repairs. The opposite parties immediately prepared a preliminary estimate for the repairs and forwarded the same to the insurance company for their approval. Thereafter, the Surveyor of the insurance company accorded approval for the repairs and opposite parties completed the necessary repairs by 28.2.2014 and forwarded the final bill to the insurance company on 4.3.2014. The insurance company having settled bill less an amount of Rs.7,140/- towards policy excess and depreciation and the complainant had been requested to come and take delivery of his vehicle after paying the said amount. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 7,140/- on 19.3.2014 and take delivery of the vehicle only on 24.3.2014. While taking delivery of the vehicle, complainant had thoroughly inspected the vehicle and expressed satisfaction in writing, “with respect to the work done.” There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
3. The version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant had never intimated about the payment of Rs.9,725/- in favour of KSEB authorities for KSEB. The complainant without getting the consent from the 3rd opposite party, complainant paid Rs.9,725/- to KSEB towards the damages to KSEB and it is not payable as per the policy terms. The claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.17,299/- as per the survey report and policy terms. The parking charges, loss of use of the vehicle and amount remitted to KSEB are not payable as per the policy terms and conditions.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and produced one document marked as Ext.B1.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. Point No.1:- One of the contentions of the opposite party is that complainant is not a consumer. The complainant admitted in the complaint that he purchased the vehicle for his livelihood and he and his family depending on the income earned by running the vehicle. In order to contradict the said allegation of the complainant no contra evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is maintainable.
7. Point Nos.2 & 3:- It is an admitted fact that complainant entrusted the vehicle on 14.2.2014 with the 2nd opposite party for repairing the damages due to the accident on 12.2.2014. According to the complainant he remitted Rs.9,725/- to the KSEB towards damages to the electric post and he is entitled to get that amount from the 3rd opposite party. But 3rd opposite party stated that as per the terms of the policy condition No.2, “No admission, offer, promise, payment, or indemnity shall be made or given by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the company which shall be entitled if it so desires to take over and conduct in the name of the insured the defense or settlement of any claim or to prosecute in the name of the insured for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company may require. If the company shall make any payment in settlement of any claim and such payment includes any amount not covered by this policy the insured shall repay to the company the amount not so covered.” According to the 3rd opposite party complainant paid the amount of Rs.9.725/- to the KSEB without getting the consent from the 3rd opposite party and is not payable as per the policy terms. In view of the above policy condition, the 3rd opposite party is not liable to refund the amount of Rs.9,725/- to the complainant.
8. The another allegation of the complainant is that the first and 2nd opposite parties have taken inordinate delay in returning the vehicle after repairing the damages. It is an admitted fact that the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party on 14.2.2014 and the complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle on 24.3.2014. The question to be answered is whether the opposite parties have committed delay in returning the vehicle to the complainant. The opposite parties admitted in the version that they have informed the matter to the insurance company and the Surveyor of the insurance company accorded approval for the repairs and opposite parties have completed the repairs by 28.2.2014 and forwarded the bill to the insurance company on 4.3.2014. According to the opposite parties, they informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle after paying the balance amount. While cross examining the complainant, he deposed before the Forum that on 4.3.2014 he had received information from the opposite party to take delivery of the vehicle and he tried to take the vehicle, but since the vehicle was not in a good condition, he has not taken the vehicle. In the version also opposite party admitted that complainant without notice came to take delivery of the vehicle on 19.3.2014 and paid the amount of Rs.7,140/-, but since the vehicle was lying idle after repairs from 4.3.2014 it required clearing and washing and hence the complainant had been requested to come the next day. So it is clear that there was some delay on the part of the opposite party in returning the vehicle. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is to be compensated for the delay in returning the vehicle by the opposite party.
In the result complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Prasad Chandran N.G. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the RC book
Ext.A2 - Copy of the GD Entry
Ext.A3 - Copy of the certificate from KSEB
Ext.A4 - Copy of the receipt from KSEB
Ext.A5 - Copy of the temporary receipt for Rs.7,140/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Gopakumar. V. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Satisfaction note (Opposite by the complainant)
Ext.B2 - Copy of the Motor final survey report
Ext.B3 - Copy of the policy schedule
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
