Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/176/2016

B.Parasmal S/o.Bhaworlal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,United India Insurance company ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arvind Kumar A.Joythi Rani

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on 26.10.2016

                                                                    Date of disposal          : 24.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.      : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.176/2016

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                                

1.B.Parasmal, (Deceased),

S/o.Bhawarlal,

Residing at No.18/23, Thiru Nagar,

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

 

2.P.Anjana Devi, W/o, Late B.Parasmal,

 

3. P.Arihanth Kumar, S/o.Late B.Parasmal,

 

4.P.Gunuwanth Kumar, S/o.Late B.Parasmal,

 

5. P.KiranKumar, D/o.Late B.Parasmal,

 

(Complainants 2 to 5 are impleaded as Legal Heirs   of the 1^st complainant vide order dated 28.03.2018

In CMP.No.46/2018)

 

                                                                                             .... Complainants.                                                                      ..Vs..

 

1.The Manager,

M/s. United India Insurance Company,

Registered and Head Office:

No.24, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014.

 

 

2. The Manager,

M/s.United India Insurance Company,

Branch Office – Park Town,

No.70, N.S.C.Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

3. The Manager,

M/s.Lanson Motors Private Limited,

Lanson Toyoto Ambattur BP,

17C, Sidco Industrial Estate,

Patravakkam, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098.

 

                                                                                        ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainants                         : M/s. M.Aravind Kumar

Counsel for the  1^st & 2^nd opposite parties     : M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                      : M/s.M.S.Soundara Rajan

 

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to  pay the amount due to the 3^rd opposite party  and further directing the 3^rd opposite party to release the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants is the absolute owner of the TOYOTA ETIO LIVA vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 02 AU 2430. The said vehicle is covered under the Insurance Policy 0108043115P101416389 and valid for the period of 08.05.2015 to 07.05.2016  On 31.08.2015 his vehicle met with an accident and the same was duly intimated to the 2^nd opposite party. Thereafter the vehicle was towed to the service centre of the 3^rd opposite party who on initial verification gave an estimate on 01.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.80,734.51. Thereafter the same was also sanctioned by the 3^rd opposite party. While so, after two weeks the 3^rd opposite  party said to have found some starting problem in the vehicle during servicing and repairing and having found that the vehicle required further repairing issued a revised estimate on 6^th October 2016 for an amount of Rs.3,69,915/- which was duly communicated to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite party by the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant was awaiting call from the 3^rd opposite party for the release of the vehicle. The vehicle has been lying with the 3^rd opposite party since 01.09.2013. The complainants due to the lethargic attitude of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, complainants has been deprived of his vehicle and put to unbearable mental agony and harassment apart from every day monetary loss for travelling by alternative transport vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party being the head of the second opposite party is equally liable for all loss and damages caused to the complainant. The above act of both the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency of service which caused great mental agony and physical strain to him. Hence this complaint.        

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^st  & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed as against this opposite party. The complainants had insured his 2012 model Toyota Liva Car TN 02 AU 2430 with the opposite party for the period 08.05.2015 to 07.05.2016. The complainants reported damage to the vehicle on 31.08.2015 . Immediately this opposite party had appointed Mr.Krishna Kumar as Surveyor for  statutory survey and verification. The vehicle was left with the  3^rd opposite party who gave an Estimate for Rs.80,734/- 51 . It is necessary to point out that the vehicle had run more than 71,000 kms and had been well used and worn out. The estimate was given for repairing damage to certain external parts such as Radiator, grille etc. due to accident. At the time there was no mention of any engine damage or repairs. The engine was not damaged due to accident or impact. Based on the estimate given and physical inspection the surveyor assessed the damage at Rs.61,100/- However, belatedly a further claim was sought to be made for engine repairs through a revised estimate for a huge sum of Rs.3,69,915/-. After a through consideration of the manner of accident reported and correlating the same with the nature of damage the surveyor has ruled out any engine damage due to accident. There was no visible damage externally seen during inspection on the engine. This opposite party is not liable to pay for any engine repairs and informed so. The engine repairs due to use of the vehicle after the accident or due to heavy use/wear and tear cannot be claimed under the policy. The opposite parties were always ready and willing to pay for the originally estimated damage, subject to repairs being affected. The starting trouble which required repairs to engine cannot be attributed to the accident and cannot be claimed under the policy. This opposite party  has rightly considered and rejected the revised estimate as it is not due to any accidental damage but due to starting problem without any damage being sustained in the accident. The reliefs sought are not sustainable but an attempt to misuse the Consumer Protection Act.

3.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The complainants has purchased the Toyoto Etios Liva car bearing Registration No.TN 02 AV 2430 in the year 2015 and the complainants had taken Insurance Policy form M/s United India Insurance Pvt. Ltd.,. On 01.09.2015 the complainants brought his vehicle to their work shop at Ambattur which was not in running condition and stated that the vehicle met with an accident at Kolathur near Rettaiyeri junction  on 31.08.2016 at 14.00  hours and the complainants has reported that the front portion of the vehicle and wind shield glass were damaged and service advisor has noted the same in the check sheet. On 01.09.2015 an approximate estimate was  prepared based on the information furnished by the complainants to replace the damaged parts like grill, radiator and wind shield and others  connected parts and for the repair work.  The 1^st opposite party has sent the surveyor to inspect and asses the damages caused to the vehicle, and based on the surveyor’s report the Insurance claim of Rs.61,00/- was sanctioned only on 19.10.2015 but not paid to the 3^rd opposite party. The vehicle was made ready on 30.09.2016. But, they were unable to start the engine and they suspect some fault in the engine. Immediately they informed to the complainants about the problem, Subsequently on 06.10.2015, the complainants has given his approval to dismantle the engine. The technicians of the company after testing the engine found that the engine got damaged and the entire engine assembly has to changed and informed to the complainants that the coolant would have been drained as a result of the damage caused to the radiator in the accident and without noticing the same the complainants would have driven the vehicle. The 3^rd opposite party to prepare the estimate for the engine repair work. The 3^rd opposite party has also prepared an additional estimate to the tune of Rs.3,79,915/-  on 06.10.2015, thereafter the complainants has approached 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to claim repair charge for  the engine work. The Insurance Company refused to sanction for engine work as the engine was not damaged due to accident based on the Insurance Company. Surveyor report. The complainants have requested the 3^rd opposite party to raise final bill for the repair work carried out by the 3^rd opposite party.  Thereafter on 18.10.2016 the 3^rd opposite party prepared and sent final bill of Rs.1,04,504/- to the complainants. The 3^rd opposite party has made several requests to the complainants to make payment for the work done by them but till date no amounts was paid. In fact the 3^rd opposite party is entitled to receive Rs.1,04,504/- apart from parking charges from the date final bill raised by them.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:    

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties 1 & 2 liable to pay the  repair charges of the  

     vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party?

 

4. Whether the complainants is entitled for compensation and cost?

3. To what other relief, the complainants is entitled?

5. POINT NO :1& 2

          The complainants 2^nd to 5^th  are the legal heirs of the deceased 1^st complainant namely Parasmal. The 1^st opposite party is the Manager, United India Insurance Company, Head Office, Chennai. The 2^nd opposite party  the Manager, United  India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Park Town. The 3^rd opposite party  the Manager, Lanson Motors Private Limited, Ambattur.

           06. The deceased 1^st complainant was the owner of the Toyota Etio Liva vehicle  bearing Registration No.TN-02- AU-2430 . The complainants purchased the said vehicle  on 08.05.2012.  Ex.A1  is  the copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The said vehicle is covered under insurance policy valid for the period from 08.05.2015 to 07.05.2016.  The 1^st complainant had taken insurance policy from the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.A2 is the Insurance Policy copy.

          07. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 31.08.2015  near Rettery Junction. The 1^st complainant son reported the accident to the Thirumangalam Traffic Investigation wing on 31.08.2015 itself. The police issued an accident certificate on 10.09.2015. Ex.A3 is the accident certificate issued by the Thirumangalam Traffic Investigation dated 10.09.2015. The 1^st complainant also intimated the accident to the 2^nd opposite party and thereafter the vehicle towed to the service centre of the 3^rd opposite party for repair. The 3^rd opposite party on 01.09.2015  gave an estimate for Rs.80,734/-. Ex.A4 is the copy of estimate dated 01.09.2015. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties also sanction the said amount.

          08. The complainants alleged that after 2 weeks, the 3^rd opposite party found some starting problem in the vehicle during servicing and repairing and having found that  the vehicle requires further repairing and issued and revised estimate of Rs.3,69,915/-  on 06.10.2010 and communicated the same to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, but 1^st  & 2^nd  opposite parties not sanctioned the revised estimate amount and vehicle is now lying with the 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite parties also admitted the nonpayment of revised estimate amount and vehicle is now lying with them from 01.09.2015.

          09. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties contended  that they are always ready and willing to pay the original estimate amount and not liable to pay for engine repair cost and engine repairs is due to  the use of the vehicle after the accident or due to heavy use and therefore the revised estimates was  rightly rejected by the 2^nd opposite party. 

          10. The 3^rd opposite party on 06.10.2015 issued a revised estimate. Ex.A5 is the copy of the revised estimated dated 06.10.2015. The 3^rd opposite party communicated the same to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, but the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties rejected the revised estimates on the reason, that the insurance company is not liable to pay the repair charges for engine and the damages to the engine not damage due to the accident.  One surveyor Krishnakumar inspected the vehicle and issued a motor survey report on 22.03.2016. Ex.B4 is the copy motor survey report dated 22.03.2016.  In the survey, report the surveyor assessed the liability of the insurance company at Rs.61,100/- and surveyor not included the repair charges of the engine of the vehicle.

          11. The 3^rd opposite party found the starting  problem of the vehicle during repairing and  therefore the 3^rd opposite party issued revised estimates. The vehicle met with an accident on 31.08.2015 and immediately the vehicle towed to the  3^rd opposite party service centre. The vehicle is in custody with the 3^rd opposite party from 01.09.2015 to 06.10.2015  and found the  engine problem and therefore the engine problem might be due to the accident happened on 31.08.2015.  Further the vehicle was having insurance coverage for the accident period.  Therefore, the insurance company liable to pay the repair charges of the insured vehicle. But, the  1^st & 2^nd opposite parties failed to pay the repair charges to the 3^rd opposite party . The above attitude of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and 1 & 2^nd opposite parties liable to pay the repair charges to the 3^rd opposite party .

12. POINT NO.3

          The complaints unable to use to vehicle 2015  till date. The vehicle is 3^rd opposite party service centre. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties being the insurer liable to pay the repair charges to the 3^rd opposite party but failed to pay the repair charges  and due to the above deficiency in service, The complainants unable to the vehicle and same cost mental agony and financial loss. The 1^st complainant who was the owner of the vehicle died and her legal heirs one added as parties. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for compensation and cost.

 

 

13. POINT NO.4

           In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally ordered to pay the repair charges payable under the insurance policy of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 02 AU 2430 to the 3^rd opposite party within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

 Further the opposite parties 1 & 2 are  jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainants.

          The above amount Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) (20,000+ 5,000) shall be paid to the complainants within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

 

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24^th day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.05.2012                   Registration Certificate

Ex.A2 dated 08.05.2012                   Insurance Policy

Ex.A3 dated 10.09.2015                   Accident Certificate

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Estimate Copy

Ex.A5 dated 06.10.2015                   Re-Estimated Copy

Ex.A6 dated 25.05.2016                   Legal Notice

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A8 dated 08.07.2016                   Reply letters

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1 dated  NIL                     Insurance Policy with terms and conditions

Ex.B2 dated 15.09.2015                   Claim Form

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      Estimate of Repairer

Ex.B4 dated 22.03.2016                   Survey Report

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B5 dated 01.09.2015                   Check Sheet original

Ex.B6 dated 01.09.2015                   Approximate Estimate

Ex.B7 dated 06.10.2015                   Letter & complainant original

Ex.B8 dated 06.10.2015                   Estimate for Engine work

Ex.B9 dated 05.05.2016                   Letter to 3^rd opposite party

Ex.B10 dated 18.10.2016                 Bill original

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT