By. Sri. Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-The Complainant is the owner of Datsun car bearing Reg. No.KL-73-7400 which had been purchased from
-2-
the First opposite party. He has insured the car with second opposite party. The car met with an accident on 12.04.2017 with an autoriksha bearing Reg. No. KL-73-7014 and got damages. Soon after the accident, the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the first opposite party towed the vehicle from the accident place to their workshop at Puthiynagadi. Then, they prepared the estimate and promised that they can give the repaired car to the complainant on 30.04.2017. But when the complainant contacted the first opposite party on 30.04.2017 to get back the car, he has noticed that the car was not repaired. They asked ten more days and gave the repaired car only on 06.07.2017 ie 66 days after the offered date. The complainant has given Rs.89,870/- to the first opposite party towards the repair charges. But the second opposite party has only given Rs.67,400/- to the complainant as insurance claim. When enquired, the second opposite party told that the reason for the fewer amount is due to the mistake in the estimate prepared by the first opposite party. Actually, the complainant is entitled to get the full estimated amount. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on second opposite party. There is also deficiency in service on first opposite party in delaying the repair and in committing mistakes in estimate. Hence this complaint to get Rs.22,470/- as the difference between estimated amount and given amount from the second opposite party, to get
-3-
compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the first opposite party for the delay in repairing the vehicle and committed mistakes in preparing the estimate. He has also sought Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings from both opposite parties.
3. The first opposite party filed version contenting as follows:- They admitted that the complainant is the owner of the Datsun car and it met with an accident on 12.04.2017 as alleged by the complainant. They have also admitted that they repaired the car. But they denied that they promissed to give back the repaired car on 30.04.2017. They agreed to give back the repaired car only on 31.05.2017. Even though, the first opposite party informed about the completion of repair on 31.05.2017, the complainant has taken the delivery only on 06.07.2017. He has not raised any objection for anything and he paid the full bill amount. So, he took the vehicle with full satisfaction. The difference in the amount might be due to the deduction of the depreciation and salvage value calculated by second opposite party. At the time of getting back the car, the complainant had no complaint. There is no deficiency in service from the part of this opposite party and so they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. So, this complaint is to be dismissed with their compensatory cost.
-4-
4. The Second opposite party filed version contenting as follows:- They admitted the ownership of the car and the accident. After getting claim form, this opposite party appointed the insurance surveyor to assess the damage. After his inspection, the surveyor assessed the damage to the extent of Rs.68,974/-. After deducting Rs.1,500/- towards salvage value, this opposite party paid Rs.67,400/- to the complainant. The complainant accepted the above said amount as full and final satisfaction of the claim. Now the complainant is estopped from claiming further amount. This opposite party did not receive any estimate for Rs.22,000/-. Additional estimate, if any received subsequently after the survey and assessment, cannot be considered. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get further Rs.22,470/- as claimed. Hence he is also not entitled to get compensation as well as cost from this opposite party. So this complaint is to be dismissed with their cost.
5. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the first opposite party. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get anything from the first opposite party as claimed?
-5-
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the Second opposite party. If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get anything from the second opposite party as claimed?
3. Reliefs and Cost.
6. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1, OPW2, Ext. A1 to A4 and B1 to B8. Heard both sides.
7. Point No.1:- The complainant is the owner of Datsun car bearing registration No.KL-73-7400. It is an admitted fact that it met with an accident on 12.04.2017 and got damages. It is also an admitted fact that the first opposite party repaired the vehicle. The complainant alleged that though the first opposite party agreed to give back the repaired car on 30.04.2017, they have given the car only on 06.07.2017 ie 66 days after the promised date. The further allegation of the complainant is that the first opposite party has committed a mistake in preparing the estimate and therefore he lost Rs.22,470/-. Thus according to the complainant, he is entitled to get Rs.22,470/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation from first opposite party for the delay in repair and in committing mistakes in estimate.
-6-
8. To prove the complainant’s case, he has given evidence as PW1. He deposed in conformity with his case. The first allegation of the complainant is that the first opposite party has given the repaired car 66 days after the promised date. On the other hand, the case of first opposite party is that they never promised to return the repaired car on 30.04.2017. According to them, they promised to give the repaired car only on 31.05.2017 and that the complainant failed to get back the car on that day even if they informed him. According to them, the complainant has taken the repaired car only on 06.07.2017. Therefore according to them, there is no deficiency in their service.
9. PW1 affirmed that the first opposite party promised to give back the repaired car on 30.04.2017 and they have given the car only on 06.07.2017. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has received back the car on 06.07.2017. The Senior Manager of first opposite party has given evidence as OPW1. He deposed that the car was repaired on 31.05.2017 and though they informed, the complainant took the car only on 06.07.2017. But except the oral evidence of OPW1, here there is no documentary evidence to prove that the first opposite party had given information to the complainant about the completion of the repair work. OPW1 deposed that there is document in their office with regard to this information. Since the first opposite party affirmed that they have informed
-7-
about the completion of the repair work, they ought to have produced this documentary evidence to prove that they informed about the repair to the complainant and he failed to take back the car. But, they have not produced any documents to prove that they have informed the complainant about the repair of car on 30.05.2017. So, there is no contra evidence to the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. Therefore it is to be held that the first opposite party delayed the repair and they have given back the car not within a reasonable time. Therefore according to our opinion, the first opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the inordinate delay in repair.
10. The next allegation of the complainant is that the first opposite party committed a mistake in preparing estimate. It is an admitted fact that the fist opposite party has given two estimates to second opposite party. The first one is for Rs.79,571/- and second one is for Rs.8,302/-. Ext.B4 is the first estimate and Ext.B5 is the second estimate. The case of the complainant is that even though he has paid Rs.89,870/- to the first opposite party towards repair charge, the second opposite party has given only Rs.67,400/-. According to the complainant, the second opposite party informed him that this difference was happened due to the mistake committed by first opposite party in preparing the estimate. Ext.B6 is the survey report which includes both estimated amount given by the first opposite
-8-
party. OPW2 is the present Branch Manager of second opposite party. From the contention of second opposite party and the evidence given by OPW2 coupled with Ext.B6, it can be seen that the difference was happened not due to the mistake of first opposite party. Ext.B6 shows that the surveyor not accepted the estimates given by first opposite party. He assessed an amount of Rs.69,974/- only and the second opposite party deducted Rs.1,000/- as policy excess and Rs.1,500/- as salvage value from that amount. Therefore the second opposite party has given the amount to the complainant basing only upon Ext.B6, survey report. They have also deducted the salvage value and policy excess. Therefore here, it is evident that the difference is not due to the alleged mistake committed by first opposite party in preparing the estimates. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for the alleged mistake committed by the first opposite party.
11. Point No.2:- One of the claims of the complainant is that he is entitled to get the difference of Rs.22,470/- from the second opposite party. As we already held, the difference was not occurred due to the alleged mistake committed by first opposite party. The second opposite party has given the claim amount to the complainant basing only on Ext.B6, survey report. The complainant
-9-
has no case that the Surveyor mistakenly assessed the claim amount. The second opposite party deducted Rs.1,000/- as insurance excess and Rs.1,500/- as salvage value. The complainant has no case that the second opposite party is not entitled to deduct this amount. Moreover, the complainant has received the insurance amount from the second opposite party without any protest. He received the amount as full and final satisfaction of the claim. Ext.B8 is the settlement intimation voucher signed by the complainant. Ext.B8 shows that the complainant received the amount in full satisfaction and discharge of the claim under the policy. Therefore, here there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party as alleged by the complainant.
12. Point No.3:- Since, we found point No.1 as discussed above, the complainant is entitled to get relief in part against first opposite party. But, he is not entitled to get any relief from second opposite party.
Complainant sought Rs.5,000/- as cost from the opposite parties. Since we held that the first opposite party delayed the repair, the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable cost from the first opposite party. Our opinion is that Rs.2,000/- is reasonable and we held that this munch amount is to be given by the first
-10-
opposite party to the complainant as cost of this proceedings. Since, we held that there no deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party, the second opposite party is not liable to pay any cost to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. First opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December 2019.
Date of Filing: 09.10.2017
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Poulose. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Rohith. C. Service Head.
OPW2. Sundaran Konadan. Branch Manager.
-11-
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Certificate of Insurance.
A2. Copy of Estimate.
A3. Copy of Additional Estimate.
A4. Copy of Receipt.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Private Car Package Policy (01.09.2016 to 31.08.2017).
B2. Claim Intimation. Dt:19.04.2017.
B3. Motor Claim Form. Dt:19.04.2017.
B4. Estimate.
B5. Additional Estimate.
B6. Motor Final Survey Report. Dt:24.07.2017.
B7. Re-inspection Report. Dt:24.07.2017.
B8. Settlement Intimation Voucher.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
