Kerala

Idukki

CC/354/2016

George - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Sijimon K Abraham

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING: 14.12.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2019

Present:

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P. MEMBER

C.C No.354/2016

Between

Complainant : George, S/o. Varkey,

Kombanamukalil House,

Attappallam P.O.,

Kumily.

(By Adv: Sijimon. K. Augustine)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Oriented Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Pottakkulam Tourist Complex,

Koottickal Road,

Mundakkayam – 686 513.

(By Adv : Sony George)

2. The Manager,

T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar & Sons Ltd.,

M.C. Road, Adichira,

Kottayam.

(By Adv : Shiji Joseph)

3. Anshanth Hussain K.P.,

DAE FIIISLA Insurance Surveyor,

Loss Assessor of Valuer,

Vilanganpara Building,

Good Shepard Road, Kottayam.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-37C-5139, Renult Nissan Lodgy. This vehicle is insured with 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is the dealer cum-authorised service agent and 3^rd opposite party is the surveyor. This vehicle met with an accident at Pulluppara and caused severe damages and local police registered a case. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party. On intimation 1^st opposite party deputed 3^rd opposite party to assess the damages. 3^rd opposite party prepared a preliminary

(cont....2)

- 2 -

estimate. At the time of inspection, 2^nd opposite party assured the damages to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and on 5.8.2016, 2^nd opposite party given an additional estimate of Rs.26,234/- to the 3^rd opposite party. As per the final bill, 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs.1,20,401/- and the complainant paid the amount to 1^st opposite party. Thereafter the complainant claimed this amount from 1^st opposite party. But the 3^rd opposite party, without considering the additional estimate given by the 2^nd opposite party, he approved only Rs.59095/- for spare parts and Rs.27,500/- for labour. Actually, complainant paid Rs.77533/- for spare parts alone.

 

The complainant further averred that the non-consideration of the estimate submitted by the 2^nd opposite party to 3^rd opposite party is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 3. Against this complainant filed this petition seeking reliefs such as to direct opposite parties to pay the balance amount along with compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version, 1^st opposite party contended that, the 3^rd opposite party has inspected the vehicle, but has not the employee of 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is an IRDA licensed person and he is working for some other insurance companies also. This opposite party is not aware of any subsequent additional inspection and preparation of additional estimate if any. 1^st opposite party has not received any information from the other opposite parties with regard to the additional estimate prepared by the 3^rd opposite party. Further contended that the preparation of additional estimate and the claim of additional amount is the result of collusion between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party for getting some additional amount from 1^st opposite party. Hence this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant other than the amount fixed by the 3^rd opposite party after inspection. This opposite party has offered the exact amount which was recommended by the 3^rd opposite party. Hence there is no cause of action against this opposite party.

 

In the reply version, 2^nd opposite party contended that since the vehicle was brought for accidental repair, the complete estimate could be given only after dismantling the affected area. That could be done after the survey. The preliminary estimate was given for Rs.1,85,970/-. During the repair, the 2^nd opposite party on 27.7.2016 given an additional estimate of Rs.26,324/- to the 3^rd opposite party and submitted the final bill. But the 3^rd opposite party discarded the supplementary estimate and it is responsibility of 3^rd opposite party to submit the same to 1^st opposite party. Since the vehicle has coverage of

(cont....3)

- 3 -

bumper to bumper, the 3^rd opposite party is bound to approve the spares in the preliminary estimate. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 to P6 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of insurance certificate. Ext.P2 is copy of receipt. Copy of preliminary estimate is marked as Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is copy of additional estimate. Ext.P5 is copy of final invoice bill. Ext.P6 is copy of voucher.

 

From the opposite side, witness of 2^nd and 1^st opposite parties are examined as DWs1 and 2 respectively. Exts.R1 to R6 marked. Ext.R1 is the initial estimate. Ext.R1(a) is the additional bill. Ext.R1(b) is the additional estimate. Ext.R2 is duty certificate. Ext.R3 is copy of estimation report. Ext.R4 is the invoice issued by the opposite party dated 27.7.2016. Ext.R5 is the motor survey report dated 17.10.2016. Ext.R6 is the bill check report. Ext.R7 is the insurance policy.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both parties and had gone through the evidence.

 

It is an admitted fact that the vehicle having Reg. No.KL-37C-5139, owned by the complainant met with an accident. It is duly insured with the 1^st opposite party company. Immediately after the accident, the vehicle was entrusted to 2^nd opposite party, the authorised service agent of Renault company and as per the request of 1^st opposite party, 3^rd opposite party surveyor, who is having IRDA authorisation, inspected the vehicle and after the receipt of initial estimate from 2^nd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party issued work order.

 

The learned counsel for complainant argued that, on the basis of a preliminary estimate, the 2^nd opposite party started the repairing work of the vehicle. After dismantling, the 2^nd opposite party came to know that some of the internal parts of the vehicle was also damaged and to be replaced. Hence the 2^nd opposite party prepared an additional estimate of Rs.26,324/-. As per

(cont....4)

- 4 -

Ext.P5, the final bill amount comes to Rs.1,20,401/-. But the 3^rd opposite party surveyor assessed the total estimate as Rs.59,095/- for cost of spare parts and Rs.27,500/- as cost of labour. Actually as per the evidence, the complainant had paid Rs.77,533/- for cost of spare parts alone.

 

From the defence side, one Mr. Abhijith Babu, body shop advisor of 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. While cross examination, he categorically deposed that, he submitted the bill to 1^st opposite party along with additional estimate. Moreover, the insurance policy is bumper to bumper and nil depreciation and the insurance company is bound to pay the whole estimated amount.

 

At the same time, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that they are not aware of the subsequent inspection and preparation of additional estimate if any. Moreover, they have not received any information from the other opposite parties with regard to the additional estimate by the 3^rd opposite party. Further argued that, the preparation of additional estimate and claim of additional amount is the result of collusion between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party for getting additional benefit from the 1^st opposite party.

 

On going through the deposition of DW2, the officer of 1^st opposite party insurance company, it is seen that he also admitted that, the policy issued to the vehicle is bumper to bumper nil depreciation policy. He further deposed that additional estimate is permissible and if it is received by the surveyor from the workshop, it should be handed over to the insurance company by the surveyor. He added that it is the duty of surveyor to submit a report to the insurance company after verifying the additional estimate if any.

 

In this case DW1, the authorised person of 2^nd opposite party, specifically stated that he handed over the additional estimate with additional bill to the surveyor. But as per the version of 1^st opposite party, they has not received a report from the surveyor by covering the additional estimate.

 

Here 3^rd opposite party is the surveyor and he has not appeared before the Forum. He is the only person to say actually what happened in the matter since the surveyor is kept mum in this matter, it is the duty of 1^st opposite party to clarify the issue, because, they appointed the surveyor in this accident case.

 

From the evidence and records, the Forum is of a considered view that, 1^st opposite party is bound to pay the entire repairing charge of the alleged vehicle

(cont....5)

- 5 -

as per the final bill, since the insurance policy is a bumper to bumper nil depreciation policy. It is seen that 1^st opposite party has not denied the final completion bill and they themselves admitted that, they are ready to pay the whole amount, subject to the sanction of the surveyor. At the same time, the Forum is of the observation that insurance company shall bound to honour the genuine claim, without solely considering the survey report. In this case the insurance company already paid the admitted amount of Rs.88,586/- to the complainant as per the order of this Forum. Eventhough they have received the repair from the surveyor on 17.10.2016, they failed to sanction the amount without the interference of this Forum. The complainant approached the Forum on 13.12.2016 and the Forum directed the 1^st opposite party to pay the admitted amount on 5^th July, 2017. Only after the receipt of the direction from the Forum, 1^st opposite party sanctioned that amount to the complainant. This is a gross deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

 

Hence under the above circumstances, by considering the evidence put forward by the complainant, the complaint allowed. The Forum directs the 1^st opposite party to pay the whole repair charges as per Ext.P5 invoice bill by deducting Rs.88,586/-, (that is, Rs.1,20,401 - 88,586) along with 12% interest from the date of this complaint. Forum further directs the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of this petition.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont....6)

 

- 6 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - George.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Abhijith Babu.

DW2 - Babu K.K.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of insurance certificate.

Ext.P2 - copy of receipt.

Ext.P3 - Copy of preliminary estimate.

Ext.P4 - copy of additional estimate.

Ext.P5 - copy of final invoice bill.

Ext.P6 - copy of voucher.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - initial estimate.

Ext.R1(a) - additional bill.

Ext.R1(b) - additional estimate.

Ext.R2 - duty certificate.

Ext.R3 - copy of estimation report.

Ext.R4 - invoice issued by the opposite party dated 27.7.2016.

Ext.R5 - motor survey report dated 17.10.2016.

Ext.R6 - bill check report.

Ext.R7 - insurance policy.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT