BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2017
Filed on : 28-01-2014
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.48/2014
Between
Ranjith T.P., : Complainant
S/o. Premarajan. T.P., (By Adv. Shaji P. Mathew,
'Namdanam,' XI/521, M/s. C.M. Nazar Associates,
Rainbow gardens, IInd Floor, JMV. Towers,
Kureekad P.O., Deepam Lane, Kombara,
Ernakulam-682 305. Ernakulam)
And
1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties
M/s.Hyundai Motors India Ltd., ( 1st O.P. By Adv.R. Ajit Kumar Varma)
Banani Building, Plot#5,
Commercial Centre, Jasola,
New Delhi-110 025.
2. The Managing Director, (2nd O.P. By Adv. A.A. Jaleel,
VTJ Motors Pvt. Ltd., 40/1677, 1st Floor, Choolackal
Maradu. P.O., Building, Convent Juntion, Market
Ernakulam-682 304. Road, Kochi-682 011)
3. Branch Manager, (3rd O.P. By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mega Arcade, Near High Court of
1st Floor, Opp. St. Augustine HSS, Kerala, Power House road, Ekm)
NH 47 Byepass, Aroor,
Ernakulam-688 534.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant is the owner of a Hyundai i10 car since 13-04-2010 which was insured with the 3rd opposite party insurance company . On 24-06-2013 the car met with an accident and the complainant was seriously injured and the car was damaged on the front and right hand side. The car was removed from the spot of accident with the assistance of M/s. St. Mary’s Crane service, Vyttila . The accident was intimated to the concerned police station also. The car was entrusted for the repair work with the 2nd opposite party M/s. VTJ motors, Maradu. On 29-06-2013 the complainant received a call asking him to come and sign some papers for claiming insurance amount. The complainant found that the car was kept neglected and unattended in the open ground exposed sun and rain. The complainant was forced to give Rs. 1,500/- to the service adviser to keep the vehicle protected from rain. The 2nd opposite party was prolonging the repairs of the car for one reason or other. Despite the fact that the complainant had made a complaint to the 1st opposite party nothing had happened to resolve the issue. After a long wait on 12-10-2013 the complainant was intimated that the car was ready. He was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 79,000/- out of the total bill of Rs. 1,01,413/- which was the actual bill. The complainant was also insisted that the complainant has to go and collect confirmation letter of payment or the balance amount from the 3rd opposite party, insurance company. When the complainant requested a statement of calculation from the 2nd opposite party to know the quantification of depreciation , the 2nd opposite party refused to give it and therefore there was deficiency in service. The 3rd opposite party insurance company refused to issue the letter of confirmation as demanded by the 2nd opposite party. The branch manager of the 3rd opposite party behaved very rudely to the complainant. As the vehicle was not given by the 2nd opposite party the complainant was unable to arrange the ‘vahanapooja’ during Deepavali. The 2nd opposite party had released the car to the complainant only on 14-11-2013. The 2nd opposite party was keeping the complainant’s vehicle in order to claim more insurance amount on the basis of exaggerated estimated work in order to gain illegal profit. After the repairs, the performance of the vehicle was very poor and the mileage of the car was reduced to 9 k.p.l. the complainant seeks a direction to the opposite party to repair the complainant’s vehicle KL11 AE9697 in a professional manner to make it in the original condition provided with a new car or to refund the purchase price of the car through this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to all the opposite parties.
3. The 1st oppose party appeared and contested the matter contending that the manufacturer’s warranty period has been over and there is no direct contract with the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party service centre in their version contended inter-alia that there was no deficiency in their service on their part and then there was no delay in getting the vehicle repaired. The vehicle was having extensive damages and it took time to get the complete work done . The complainant did not provide the required assistance to the insurance personal to get the vehicle inspected and surveyed in time. As the vehicle was extensively damaged many of the spares were to be obtained from the manufacturer. The estimate could not be prepared with out getting the vehicle dismantled and inspected. The complainant has filed a complaint only as an experimental one to make unlawful gain . The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .
5. The 3rd opposite party submitted in their version that the 3rd opposite party had already settled the claim of the complainant even prior to the filing of this complaint and there was no protest or dispute on the part of the complainant regarding the full and final settlement of the claim. The opposite party had granted the insurance coverage subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. One Mr. Sunny Alappat was engaged as the surveyor of the vehicle and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,57,244/-. Relying on the policy conditions and survey report the claim was settled for Rs. 1,57,244/- during November 2013 itself. The estimate of the repair is done by the 2nd opposite party. And there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party.
6. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
7. The evidence in this case consists of Exbt.B1 document on the side of the opposite party . The complainant filed a proof affidavit without making himself available for cross-examination. The opposite party produced Exbt. B1 survey report and original bills along with photo graphs of the car . The 3rd opposite party had contended that they had already paid Rs. 1,57,244/- while settling the claim. The complainant did not venture to get a survey report or the evidence of an expert to prove his case that the repairing of the vehicle was not proper. That amount was paid even prior to the filing of this complaint. The complainant had suppressed this fact in the complaint. The complainant is seen to have approached the Forum with unclean hands. The documents produced by the complainant are only photo copies and those documents did not reflect any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant having not subjected himself for cross-examination after filing a proof affidavit we find that the complainant had not proved his case of deficiency in service against any of the opposite parties. Issue is found against the complainant.
8. Issue No. ii. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of February 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits : Nil
Opposite party's Exhibts:
Exbt. B1 :Copy of private and confidential
Motor (Final)Survey report
dt. 21-10-2013
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
