By Smt. Beena. M,Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Facts of the case in brief:  The Complainant, in order to deliver sea fish and ice from Kozhikode port to various fish selling shops in Wayanad district, decided to purchase the vehicle named Dosth of Asok Leyland.  At that time the agent of 1^st Opposite Party, named Vipin approached the Complainant and made him believe that Maruti super carry diesel std is a better quality vehicle than the vehicle and showed the brochure issued by the company. Then the Complainant purchased a maruti super carry diesel std vehicle from the 1^st Opposite Party firm on 09.08.2018 paying Rs.4,32,290/-. The Complainant stated that the 1^st Opposite Party induced to take the insurance policy of Opposite Party No.1 and 2, then the Complainant has been taken a package policy from the 2^nd Opposite Party firm for the period from 10.08.2018 to 09.08.2019, for which the 2^nd Opposite Party charged Rs.24,156/- as premium.  On 16.11.2019, while returning from Kozhikode, after collecting fish and ice, on 17.01.2019, it hit the back of a lorry which was stopped at Thalippuzha in Wayanad and the vehicle was seriously damaged. The accident was reported to the police and the 3^rd Opposite Party.  After that the Complainant contacted the 1^st Opposite Party through phone. As per the instruction from the 1^st Opposite Party, it was entrusted to the 4^th Opposite Party establishment which is an authorised workshop of Maruti Company.  Then the surveyor appointed by the 2^nd Opposite Party came and inspected the vehicle and submitted a report.  According to the Insurance Policy, the cost of repairing the damage to the vehicle is to be recovered from the 2^nd Opposite Party.  Then the workshop authorities obtained the signature of the Complainant and driver of the vehicle and also obtained copy of the license and related documents to collect the repair charge from the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The Complainant was made to believe that the cost of the repairs would be paid directly to the 2^nd Opposite Party.  As the 4^th Opposite Party said that the vehicle would be repaired within 30 days. Then the Complainant approached 4^th Opposite Party to take the vehicle, they said that it would be taken after the repair charge has been paid by the 2^nd Opposite Party.  But the 4^th Opposite Party did not give the vehicle to the Complainant even though the Complainant went to the premises several times.  Then the Complainant approached 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties and demanded that the amount be made available immediately.  But till date no amount has been paid by the Opposite Parties.  When the vehicle was involved in an accident, another vehicle had to be called for daily hire for fish trade.  Due to the act of Opposite Parties, the Complainant couldn’t pay the loan amount.  Hence, this complaint. 

3.  Upon notice, all the Opposite Parties appeared and filed version.  

             The Opposite Party No.1 admit that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle through them, but the Opposite Party No.1 denies that sales executive of the company had forced the Complainant to purchase the vehicle. In fact, when the sales executive/staff of the Opposite Party No.1 Company had explained the features and facilities of the Maruti Suzuki Vehicles, the Complainant was convinced about the superior quality of the vehicle. They denied the allegation that the Opposite Party No.1 forced the Complainant to purchase insurance policy provided by Opposite Party No.2 and 3 Company. The Opposite Party further submitted that the allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 did not permit the Complainant to purchase insurance policy separately from outside after taking delivery of the vehicle, is without any legal basis. It is mandatory for every vehicle dealer to provide insurance coverage with sale of their vehicle. If not, the seller/dealer of the vehicle will be held liable by the Government.  It is respectfully submitted that Opposite No.1 provides insurance policies issued by various Companies. Options of various Insurance Companies were provided to the Complainant and he has personally chosen after personally considering the price and terms of various insurance policies provided. Once the vehicle is delivered with the requisite insurance policy to the customer, then the disputes pertaining to insurance policy and the claims made thereafter is strictly a transaction between the insured and the insurer. As the seller of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.1 does not have any role in the transaction between the insured and the insurer. It is pertinent to note that Opposite Party No.1 is not an agent of Opposite Party No.2 and 3.  There is no specific or direct allegation against Opposite Party No.1.  They had provided the best services to the Complainant. Hence, the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of them. 

4.  The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 filed version stating that the Opposite Party insurance company deputed surveyor to verify and assess the alleged loss.  The Surveyor conducted survey and assessed the damage to the extent of Rs.1,24,110/- subject to terms and conditions of policy. Without prejudice to our defense and without admitting our liability, it is submitted that liability of Opposite Parties will not be more than loss assessed by surveyor i.e., Rs.1,24,110/- if the claim is admissible as per terms and conditions of the Policy. It is further submitted that the said amount is already paid to the 4^th Opposite Party through NEFT.  The Complainant is not entitled to get an amount mentioned in the complaint.  Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Opposite Party No.4 filed version and admitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop for the accidental repairs on 18/01/2019 and a job card was issued after the preliminary inspection by the service advisor and the estimated cost for repair works without tax is Rs.1,20,000/- and the same was approved by the Complainant on 23/01/2019. It is further submitted that at the time of intimation, the Complainant had given the driver details, who had not actually driven the vehicle at the time of accident. Insurance Surveyor raised the doubt about driver at the time of their investigation and demanded the hospital details of driver or confirmation from the locals who witnessed the accident. But the Complainant failed to produce those details as demanded by the surveyor. The Surveyor gave the work approval but they didn’t approved cash less because of the doubt about actual driver. This Opposite Party further submits that during the service of the vehicle, it is observed by them that the approval from the Opposite Party is necessary for carrying out the work outside the purview of the policy issued to the Complainant. For getting an approval and necessary authorization to commence the works from the Complainant, the officials of this Opposite Party called several times but the Complainant not issued the authorization to this Opposite Party to commence the works. Hence this Opposite Party sent notices along with necessary authorization form for commencing the works but the Complainant failed to give necessary consent or authorization to do works which should be done in the vehicle outside the policy coverage. In absence of the proper authorization from the customer, the Opposite Party will not be responsible or liable for any malfunctioning or under performance of the vehicle due to the repair jobs or replacements of parts not authorized by the customer. The said facts specifically communicated to the Complainant.  In the later stage only, the Complainant provided necessary authorization to this Opposite Party to do the works to which the Complainant has to pay for the same since the same will not come under the policy coverage.  The Opposite Party further submits that they never assured the Complainant that the vehicle will be delivered after 30 days from the date of job card.  Moreover, the Opposite Party denies the allegations that they conveyed the Complainant that since the vehicle is insured, the Complainant would get the entire amount from the insurance company and the Complainant need not pay any amount to them.  The Opposite Party after inspection of vehicle and insurance policy, informed the Complainant that at the time of taking policy of the vehicle he had not opted 'IMT 23’ coverage, which is meant for commercial vehicles to get coverage for bumper, headlights, fender, bonnet parts, tyre, tubes and painting. For the same, extra premium has to be paid also. But the Complainant failed to take IMT 23 coverage by paying the prescribed premium. It is due to negligence and non-co-operation of the Complainant as mentioned above, only the repair works delayed and there is no deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that since the Complainant failed to have IMT 23 for his vehicle, the Opposite Party compelled to demand the payment for painting, which the Complainant refused to pay. Now, all the work are completed and kept the vehicle idle at the Opposite Party’s premises for last few months and if any starting issue will arise, the Opposite Party will not liable for the same.  The Complainant had not approached the Opposite Party after 30 days for taking delivery of the repaired vehicle since the promised deliver date vide job card itself was after 60 days and there was no such conversation as narrated in the complaint between the Opposite Party and the Complainant.  The Opposite Party is not liable for the damages caused due to the act and negligence of Complainant and other Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party has done the approved works on the Complainant’s vehicle and waiting for the delivery of the vehicle by paying the bill amount. The vehicle was ready after repair works and the said matter was informed to the Complainant over phone and also by sending letters to him. But the Complainant failed to pay the bill amount and take delivery of the vehicle. Due to the negligence of the Complainant only the Complainant’s vehicle is still kept in the premise of the Opposite Party and for the same, the Complainant has to pay prescribed fee also. In order to escape from the liabilities and to avoid paying the bill amount, as a short cut method, the Complainant filed this complaint There is no delay or latches from the part of this Complainant for repairing the Complainant’s vehicle and the Opposite Party is ready and willing to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant after satisfying the bill amount and other incidental charges. It is further submitted that the total service amount comes to Rs.1,70,849/- and in which the Insurance company has paid Rs.1,23,639/- very recently and the remaining balance amount of Rs.47,210/- has to be paid by the Complainant for releasing the vehicle, which he refused to pay and not yet paid. If there is IMT-23 coverage as stated above, the balance amount payable will comes only in the range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            5.  The Complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  On the side of 2^nd Opposite Party, Senior Legal Executive filed chief affidavit and examined as OPW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B 10. 

6.  Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

7.  We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences.  It is not in dispute that Complainant is owner of vehicle and his vehicle met with an accident.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle had damaged in the accident and the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 deputed a surveyor for inspecting the spot and assessed the loss. The Complainant has alleged that the 1^st Opposite Party induced the Complainant to take the policy of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party in their version submitted that they only introduced the insurance company to the Complainant and it was Complainant’s decision to take insurance policy.  Here the claim or issue pertaining to the insurance policy, if any, has to be settled by the insurance company and not by the 1^st Opposite Party.  So, the complaint against 1^st Opposite Party is not maintainable. 

           8.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party submitted in their version and affidavit that on receipt of intimation the Insurance Company immediately appointed the surveyor who assessed the net loss which was paid to the Opposite Party No.4.  The Complainant has not pointed out in the complaint any objection to the report of the surveyor. It is well settled that the insurance claim can only be settled on the basis of survey report unless it was challenged by cogent evidence. It is clear from the documents submitted by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party the amount of Rs.1,24,110/- was assessed and was paid to the 4^th Opposite Party on 18.06.2019, this fact has duly admitted by the 4^th Opposite Party in their version.  We are of a considered view that the Complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor and the same has already been paid by the insurance company and thus no case of deficiency in service made out on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The 4^th Opposite Party repaired the vehicle and the same was ready to be delivered within reasonable time but due to some dispute of the Complainant with insurance company regarding the payment of the insurance, the vehicle was not taken delivery by the Complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 4^th Opposite Party.  Thus, keeping in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

             In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

             As the vehicle in question is lying in the workshop of the 4^th Opposite Party, the Complainant is directed to take the vehicle from the said place within one month from the date of this order at his own cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21^st day of August 2024.

Date of Filing:-12.12.2019.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Jurej.                                                  Accountant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Devi. P.                                              Senior Legal Executive.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Tax Invoice.                                              Dt:09.08.2018

A2.                  Copy of Customer Account.                                Dt:20.08.2018.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

B1.                  Copy of Survey Report.                                        Dt:11.04.2019.

B2.                  Copy of Motor Insurance claim Form.            

B3.                  Copy of Private Car Package Policy.

B4.                  Copy of Certificate cum Policy Schedule.

B5.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:16.02.2019.

B6.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:23.02.2019.

B7.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:05.03.2019.

B8.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:12.03.2019.

B9.                  Copy of Job Card Retail Tax Invoice.                 Dt:28.05.2019.

B10.               Final Survey Report.                                              Dt:19.02.2019.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-