O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                        The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite parties.

                        2. The complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai I20 Car bearing Reg.No.KL-26C-1551.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorised service provider of the manufacturer M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the insurers of the vehicle.  The vehicle is having a valid comprehensive policy vide cover note No.31830374 from 04.11.2012 to 03.11.2013.  The price of the vehicle is approximately calculated as Rs. 6 lakhs.

                        3. As per the complaint, the above said car hit against a compound wall near ITI Junction, Chengannur on 13.07.2013 at 6.30 a.m. and caused damages to the bumper, bonnet, radiator, left side head light, wind screen etc.  In order to rectify the damages caused to the vehicle, the said vehicle was brought to the authorised service centre at Chengannur.  Even though, the vehicle kept in the said workshop for 5 months complete repair work was not done there.  At last on December 2013, the said vehicle was brought to the workshop, which also is run by the 1^st opposite party, at Enathu.  On 28.10.2013, the said workshop authorities of Enathu demanded an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- out of which Rs.49,000/- is for labour charges, Rs.1,500/- towards the towing charges and the remaining balance are expenses of the spare parts by an invoice.  According to the complainant, though the 1^st opposite party has demanded about Rs.2 lakhs for the spare parts alleged to have been replaced by the workshop authorities they were not ready to show and handover the damaged spare parts of the vehicle to the complainant.  The complainant stated that the vehicle is still not road worthy and while driving a right side fluctuation was also present.  The complainant has written more than 10 complaints regarding this drawbacks to the concerned but all are invain.  The complainant further stated that even though the vehicle is having a comprehensive insurance policy the opposite party demanded Rs.75,000/- towards the settlement cost of repair including the spare part expenses and labour charges.  Due to the above reasons, the complainant was not ready to pay the expenses as stated above.  He again alleged that two speakers of the stereo were missed and it cost more than Rs.30,000/- for this loss also the 1^st opposite party is responsible.  The repairing work conducted by the 1^st opposite party was not proper and due to this improper repairment the electronic steering system, the functioning of the front shock absorbers are also became defective.  The functioning of the left side front door is also not working properly.  As a result of the above defect, the complainant sent legal notice to all the opposite parties but only the 3^rd opposite party replied to the legal notice.  As per the letter from the corporate office of the 3^rd opposite party, it is stated that the vehicle is ready for dispatch and it was in road worthy condition.  Moreover, on 25.02.2014 the opposite party apologized the inconvenience caused to the complainant and offered 10% discount from the depreciation amount.  The complainant went to the workshop of the 1^st opposite party but found that the vehicle is still in defective condition and the opposite parties are reluctant to hand over the damaged spare parts of the vehicle to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party is also not performing their part in making the payment to the 1^st opposite party as per the contract of insurance.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs as the purchase amount of the car, directing the 2^nd opposite party to make the repairing charges of the 1^st opposite party as per the terms of contract of insurance and for a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and cost etc.

                        4. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to opposite parties. All the above said 3 opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions in this case. 

           5. The 1^st opposite party’s version is as follows:  According to the 1^st opposite party the petition is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  He admitted the statement in Para 1 of the complaint.  According to this opposite party the alleged accident of the vehicle happened due to the rashness and negligence of the driving of the vehicle by the complainant.  As a result of this incident 80% of the vehicle was damaged.  The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant entrusted the said vehicle at the 1^st opposite party’s authorised workshop at Chengannur and rectified all the defect of the said vehicle.  At the time of the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant an alignment problem seen in the vehicle hence the vehicle is send to S.S. Motors, Main Body Workshop, Enathu at Adoor.  The alignment problem of the vehicle is cleared and the matter is informed to the complainant.  This opposite party admitted that the complainant is having a comprehensive insurance with 3^rd opposite party.  On the basis of this insurance policy the complainant is eligible to receive the damages from the insurance company after deducting the depreciation amount.  According to him, the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount if any to the company.  This opposite party again stated that he informed the complainant regarding the depreciation amount and the complainant has given assurance of that payment to opposite party.  This opposite party again contended that all the removed spare parts are safely kept in the workshop of 1^st opposite party and it can be verified by a commission.  The opposite party demanded Rs.50/- per day from the complainant as demurrage and also demanded compensation for this frivolous complaint.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. 

                       6. The version of the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:  According to them, this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  This opposite party stated that he has no direct or indirect relationship with regard to the business and dealings of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party.  According to this contesting opposite party the claiming form submitted by the complainant is highly belated.  Immediately after the receipt of the claim he deputed a qualified surveyor for assessing the damage of the vehicle and he submitted the survey report on 10.02.2013.  As per the terms and condition of the policy the liability of the insurance company is subject to the depreciation of the parts of the vehicle.  As per the report of the approved surveyor this opposite party (2^nd opposite party) paid Rs.1,75,246/- paid to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has given a full satisfaction voucher as full and final settlement with this opposite party.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party hence he is an unnecessary party for this proceedings.  According to him, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as claimed through this complaint and this complaint is only to be dismissed in favour of this opposite party.

                        7. The 3^rd opposite party’s version is as follows:  According to this opposite party, the complainant in this case alleges the deficiency in service etc. by opposite party 1 and 2 only.  There is no allegation can be seen against this opposite party.  The alleged dispute of non-settlement of accidental claim is between the complainant and insurance company being the manufacturer of the car he is no role in the present dispute.  According to this opposite party, he deals with all its dealers to ‘Principal to Principal’ basis, therefore, any act, omission, commission, deficiency/negligence in service, conduct and representation of the dealer cannot and will not made any liability to this complainant.  This opposite party’s parawised reply are also as follows:   According to him, he is just a proforma party.  It is stated that the 2^nd opposite party promptly replied to the letter sent by the complainant and extended best to help by offering a discount to the complainant.  He again contended that the complainant cannot claim warranty benefit for accidental repair and he can get relief only through insurance company.  This opposite party again submitted that HMIL deals with all its dealers on a ‘Principal to Principal’ basis, wherein the concerned dealer is solely responsible for any damage or repairment.  Being a manufacturer this opposite party’s liability is limited to its warranty obligation.  According to him, the accidental repair, which were not covered under warranty and the details of the item described in the policy are also not covered under the warranty of the policy.  These all are specifically mentioned in owner’s manual and service booklet.  According to this opposite party, the repairer of the vehicle was carried out by 1^st opposite party and all transaction was made among complainant, dealer and insurance company.  The complainant has never alleged any deficiency against this opposite party.  He also submitted that as per his version this complaint is not sustainable against him and liable to be dismissed. 

                        8. We peruse the complaint, version and document before us and frame the following issues:

1. Whether this petition is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite party is committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. If so, which opposite party is liable for it?
4. Regarding the relief and cost?

           9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to Ext.A10.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of G.D. entry dated 13.07.2013.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of advocate notice dated 03.02.2014 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.A3 series are the postal receipts of Ext.A2. Ext.A4 series are the postal acknowledgement cards of Ext.A2.  Ext.A5 is the photocopy of invoice dated 28.10.2013 for Rs.2,47,447/-.  Ext.A6 is the photocopy of R.C. Book of the complainant.  Ext.A7 is the photocopy of insurance policy.  Ext.A8 is the towing charge bill dated13.07.2013 for Rs.3,000/-.  Ext.A9 is the reply letter dated 20.02.2014 sent by the opposite party to the complainant’s advocate.  Ext.A10 is the photocopy of reply letter dated 25.02.2014 sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

                      10. According to PW1, she is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-26C-1551 of Hyundai i20 Car and due to the accident on 13.07.2013 the bumper, bonnet, radiator, left head light and wind screen etc. are damaged.  The vehicle is having a comprehensive insurance policy with 2^nd opposite party.  On 28.10.2013 as per an invoice the 1^st opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- including labour charge and the expense of the carrying of the vehicle to the workshop.  According to him, even though the vehicle is alleged to be repaired by the 1^st opposite party the defect of the vehicle was not totally cured and the opposite party caused inordinate delay for rectifying the defects of the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party demanded an excess amount of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant even if a valid comprehensive insurance was having in this vehicle.  As per the testimony of PW1 even though 96 spare parts are alleged to be replaced , none of the spare parts had been shown to the complainant.  According to him, when the car is entrusted 1^st opposite party for its repairing there was a stereo and 6 speakers where there.  But when the vehicle is handed over to the complainant after its repairing, the above said 6 speakers and the connecting wire were not found.  According to him, there is a loss of Rs.30,000/- happened due to the loss of the said speakers and wire.  According to him, the vehicle is suffering defect in electronic steering system, slanting of bonnet to the left side and there was no finishing in the painting of the said vehicle.  She again deposed that 2 front doors of the car are also tight even after its repair.  PW2 is the father of PW1, the complainant, he who filed the proof affidavit and supported the case of the complainant.  According to him, he was not present at the time of the accident and his grandson was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident dated 13.07.2013.  As per his version he narrated almost all the contents of PW1’s chief affidavit. 

            11.  On the other hand, 2^nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as DW1 through him Ext.B1 to B4 were marked.  1^st opposite party’s power of attorney holder he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined as DW2 through him marked Ext.B5 to B7.  Ext.B1 is the authorization letter.  Ext.B2 is the photocopy of final survey report.  Ext.B3 is the photocopy of satisfaction letter dated 10.12.2013.  Ext.B4 is the photocopy of Motor vehicle insurance proposal and cover note.  Ext.B5 is the General Power of Attorney Sleeba Kozhy in favour of the complainant.  Ext.B6 is the photocopy of bills dated 28.10.2013 for Rs.2,47,447/-.  Ext.B7 is the repair order (Job Card).  The Commissioner, Anilkumar. G, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Pathanamthitta he who examined as CW1 in this case and through him the Commission Report is marked as Ext.C1 series.

            12. The proof affidavit of the complainant is more or less as per the tunes of the complaint before us.  She deposed that she is a registered owner of Hyundai i20 Car bearing Reg.No.KL-26C-1551.  This vehicle met with an accident on 13.07.2013 at 6.30 a.m. and as a result of this accident the bumper, bonnet, radiator, left head light, windscreen etc. were damaged.  She deposed that her vehicle is having a comprehensive insurance coverage with the 3^rd opposite party.  After the occurrence of this incident the vehicle has been taken to the authorised dealer of Hyundai at Chengannur.  She alleged that at Chengannur workshop they took 5 months for its repairing and demanded Rs.2,47,447/- as expense on the complainant through an invoice No.8201302709.  This amount includes an amount of Rs.49,000/- as labour charge and Rs.1,500/- as the transporting charge of the vehicle.  As per her testimony in chief, she deposed that the 1^st opposite party failed to show the replaced spare parts to her and not even ready to return that damaged spare parts.  According to her, the vehicle is still not in road worthy condition and a slanting to right side is also present.  When the vehicle met with this accident there were 6 speakers which was connected to the car stereo were not found after the repairment.  As per her testimony, there was a gap found in the left side front door of the car and there was no finishing for painting work of the car.  PW2 is the father of the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  According to his testimony he was not present at the time of this accident and he is supported the case of the complainant in this case.

            13. The DW1 represent 3^rd opposite party in this case he who filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and as per his deposition in chief  he stated that he has no direct or indirect relationship with the business dealings of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party.  According to his testimony immediately after the receipt of the intimation of this claim he deputed an IRDA licence surveyor for assessing the damage of the vehicle and the surveyor filed the report on 10.01.2013.  The Ext.B2 is the survey report produced by IRDA licence surveyor.  The said surveyor is one G. Sambath, B.Tech, who is the Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer, of 3^rd opposite party.  As per Ext.B2, he certified an amount of Rs.1,75,246/- as the final claim amount.  Apart from this report, the said surveyor produced 6 photographs with regard to this car.  The photograph gives a clear dimension of this accident.  Ext.B3 dated 28.10.2013 is the alleged conformation letter (satisfaction voucher) of the complainant.  As per this letter, the complainant requested 3^rd opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,75,246/- directly and a depreciation amount of Rs.72,201/- is also seen in Ext.B3.  The figure seen as depreciation amount is not so clear also.  Ext.B4 is the motor vehicle insurance proposal and cover note.  As per this Ext.B4, it is evident to see that this insurance is a comprehensive policy and the validity of the insurance is from 04.11.2012 to 03.11.2013.  It is pertinent to see that in Ext.B4, there is a specific column to state insured declared value.  But that portion has seen vacant.  Ext.B5 is the General power of attorney in favour of one Sleeba Koshy he who represent 1^st opposite party in this case.  Ext.B6 series dated 28.10.2013 is referring the material cost and labour cost of the vehicle which is incurred at 1^st opposite party’s workshop at Chengannur.  As per Ext.B6 series it is evident to see that an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- is charged by 1^st opposite party for this vehicles repairment.  Ext.B7 dated 13.07.2013 is the repair order of this 1^st opposite party.  On the basis of this Ext.B7, it is evident to see that the complainant give consent to 1^st opposite party to carry out accident repair.

                        14. CW1 is the Commissioner in this case.  He who prepared the commission report and the report is marked asExt.C1 series.  The C1 series contains the report and 6 photographs.  According to his deposition before the Forum it is to see that at present the vehicle is not suffering any serious mechanical defect and if any mistake seen it is simple and also curable.  Against his report the complainant filed a serious objection and requested to set aside the report.  This Forum examined the Commissioner (A.M.V.I, Pathanamthitta) firstly and peruse the report and his deposition before the Forum.  Finally we decided to appreciate the Commission Report at the final stage of the case.  After the closing of evidence, we heard both sides.

                        15. Point No.1:-  The main contention of the opposite parties in this case is that the complaint is not maintainable either in fact or in law.  It is clear to see that the complainant is a consumer u/s.2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.  On the other side, the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are Proprietor and Officer-in-charge of Hyundai Motor vehicle of the complainant.  It is also admitted that 2^nd opposite party is the insurer of the complainant and the complainant is having a comprehensive insurance policy against 2^nd opposite party and it is also still in force and it is also admitted that the dispute is with regard to the service rendered to the complainant by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party with regard to the insurance amount.  Hence we find Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.

                        16. Point Nos.2 to 4:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 to 4 together.  The Point No.2 is that whether the opposite party is committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  It is admitted that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-26C-1551 Hyundai i20 car met with an accident on 13.07.2013 and at that time there was a valid comprehensive insurance policy was existed in favour of the complainant.  It is also evident to see that the vehicle in question was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party for its repair and 1^st opposite party has done the repairment and dispatch it to the complainant even though in a later stage.  The main contention of the complainant in this case is that 1^st opposite party committed an inordinate delay of 5 months for curing the defect of the vehicle and even though it is repaired by 1^st opposite party, the vehicle was not a defect free.  The alleged defect of the vehicle is mention in Para 3 of this order.  The complainant has a definite case to the effect that 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.2,47,447/- as the repairing charge of the vehicle and also demanded Rs.75,000/- as additional demand excess to the policy amount.  When we peruse the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, it is seen that there is no specific denial or any clarification with regard to the allegation of the complaint in this case or even at the time of cross examination the 1^st opposite party has no specific case with regard to the Ext.A7 bill of Rs.2,47,447/- or with regard to the depreciation of the spare parts which are removed from the car for its repair.  At the same time, it is seen that opposite party 2 or 3 has not cross-examined this PW1 hence the testimony of PW1 is unchallenged as far as 2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party are concerned.  When we peruse the testimony of PW2, the father of the complainant it is seen that only general denial can be seen on the side of 1^st opposite party here also except 1^st opposite party, 2^nd or 3^rd opposite party has not cross-examined this PW2.  Hence we find that the testimony of PW2 is also unchallengeable as far as 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party are concerned.  It is true that opposite party has a definite case to the effect that 2^nd opposite party paid Rs.1,75,246/- as per Ext.B2 to 1^st opposite party and it is also evident to see that Ext.B3 the complainant has given a full satisfaction voucher as full and final settlement with this opposite party.  At the same time, it is to see that the complainant strongly opposed the genuineness of this Ext.B3 voucher.  The complainant questioned the genuineness of this Ext.B3 stating that Ink used in Ext.B3 is in 2 colour and there is some scratches in the figure in Ext.B3.  Anyway, considering the nature of this case the genuineness of this B3 is not so material because both sides admitted that out of the total bill amount of Rs.2,47,447/- (Ext.B6).  Rs.1,75,246/- has been paid as per Ext.B2.  The next main question to be considered at this stage is whether 1^st opposite party has committed any deficiency in service for the repairment of the said vehicle and whether the 2^nd opposite party violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy as per Ext.A7 policy certificate.  It is clear that Ext.A5 and Ext.B6 are one and the same (Bill amount Rs.2,47,447/-).  In order to find the deficiency if any on the part of 1^st opposite party we have to look into the commission report Ext.C1 series.  We do admit that the complainant in this case file a petition as per I.A.2/2015 for set aside the commission report.  We examine the commissioner AMVI, Anilkumar as CW1 in this case and peruse the C1 series and his testimony before the Forum.  When we examine the testimony of CW1 in chief examination, it is to see that this CW1 admitted that there is tightness for opening the front door of the car and he deposed, “ആറാം പാരഗ്രാഫിൽ ഇടതുഭാഗം fender ഫിറ്റു ചെയ്യുന്നതിൽ gap കുടുതലായി കാണപ്പെട്ടല്ലോ? അതെന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ്? ഈ gap, fender-നും door-നും ഇടയ്ക്കാണ് കാണപ്പെട്ടത്. Gap ഉണ്ടായത് അപാകതയല്ലേ?  ആണ് He again answered bonnetൻറെ ഇടതുവശം വലതുവശത്തേക്കാള് താഴ്ന്നാണ് കിടക്കുന്നത്. അതിൻറെ കാരണം എന്താണ്? ഇടതുവശം ഭാഗം replace ചെയ്തതാണ്. അപ്പോള് പറ്റിയതാണ്..  In further chief he answered, “എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ഒരുഭാഗം താണുകിടന്നത് എന്ന് താങ്കള് പരിശോധിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ”?  (1) uneven surface (2) height difference in coil springs  ഈ വ്യത്യാസങ്ങള് കൊണ്ടാണ് വാഹനം കിടന്നത്  clear surface ൽ ആണ്. കമ്പനിയിൽ നിന്ന് വരുന്ന വാഹനങ്ങള്ക്ക് ഉയരവ്യത്യാസം കാണാറില്ല. ഒരു ഭാഗം താഴ്ന്നു കിടക്കുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് ഓടിക്കുമ്പോള്  side pulling ഉണ്ടാകാൻ ഇടയുണ്ട്. അങ്ങനെയുള്ള mechanical തകരാറുകളും  manual labour- ലുള്ള തകരാറുകളും താങ്കളുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ പെട്ടിരുന്നല്ലോ? അതെ.  C1-ൻറെ എട്ടാം Para യിൽ ഒരു രീതിയിലുള്ള mechanical തകരാറുകളും ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ പെട്ടില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ലല്ലോ? “ശരിയാണ്”.

                        17. When we examine the whole portion of the above deposition of CW1, it is crystal clear to see that the vehicle is still suffering certain defects and all these defects can be cured by a proper maintenance.  It is to be noted that the CW1’s opinion of no mechanical defect for this vehicle as per his C1 report is not sustainable and his conclusion to this effect is hereby discarded.  Then the next question to be considered is whether the insurance company, 2^nd opposite party has committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.  It is true that as per the terms and condition of the policy, the liability of the insurance company is subject to the depreciation of the spare parts, consider the age of the vehicle, and the insured is liable to be beared the depreciation amount.  It is clear that as per Ext.B6 bill amount the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- to the 1^st opposite party.  On the other hand, it is also clear that as per Ext.B2 2^nd opposite party paid Rs.1,75,246/- to 1^st opposite party as the insurance claim after deducting the depreciation value.  It is pertinent to see that the contesting opposite parties or the complainant adduced any evidence to see that what are the depreciation amounts of the spare parts of the vehicle and the percentage ought to have deducted as depreciation.  In order to arrive a conclusion to calculate the depreciation amount we are relying IRDA Regulation with regards to the depreciation aspect.  It is evident from Ext.A10 reply letter dated 25.02.2014 in favour of the complainant to the effect that the 1^st opposite party calculated the depreciation amount as per the IRDA Rules and Regulations and to conclude the issue with this complainant the 1^st opposite party offered 10% discount from the depreciation amount.  In the light of Ext.A10, an additional benefit of 10% discount is granted to this complainant by 1^st opposite party.  It is also to be considered that the complainant (PW1) alleges in her deposition and her complaint that the 1^st opposite party has demanded a further amount of Rs.75,000/- over and above the bill amount.  Regarding this issue the opposite party has no specific case in their pleading or no suggestion put forward at the time of cross-examination.  Hence we can conclude that the demand of the excess amount of Rs.75,000/- is not sustainable.  It is also pertinent to see that the 1^st opposite party made inordinate delay is curing the defect of the vehicle.  It also amounts to a deficiency in service.  

                        18. Considering the above discussion, we would like to find that 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service against the complainant with regard to the maintenance of the vehicle.  Regarding the deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party it is also found that the payment of Rs.1,75,246/- as the insured amount as per Ext.B2 survey report is also not justifiable.  In this issue also, 2^nd opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to show that 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.    

                        19. In the light of the evidence before us, we find that 2^nd opposite party is also committed deficiency in service on their part.  Considering the nature and circumstances of this case and evidence adduced by the complainant we can come to a conclusion that 3^rd opposite party is nothing to do with this case.  Hence 3^rd opposite party is exonerated from all the allegations.

                        20.  When we calculate the total amount paid by the complainant as per Ext.B6 or Ext.A5 it shows that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- and as per Ext.B2, 2^nd opposite party paid Rs.1,75,246/- to 1^st opposite party as insurance amount.  Hence we can calculate a percentage of 29.18% is not paid by the insurance company.  We do admit that as per the alleged terms and condition of the contract between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party, 10% depreciation amount can be deducted from the total amount as depreciation amount.  In this case, neither complainant nor the contesting opposite parties have not adduced any specific evidence to show that which materials are depreciable or not.  As a result, we have to rely the 10% general deduction for calculating the depreciation value.  In order to arrive a conclusion for the depreciation value we have to calculate 10% of the Ext.B6 bill amount, i.e. 10% of Rs. 2,47,447/- is equal to Rs.24,744.70.  As a result, we have to deduct Rs.24,744.70 from 2,47,447 = Rs.2,22,702.30.  On the basis of this calculation the 2^nd opposite party has to pay Rs.2,22,702.30 as insurance amount to the complainant.  It is evident to see that 3^rd opposite party paid only Rs.1,75,246/- as per Ext.B2.  As per Ext.A10, both sides admitted that the depreciation amount is calculated as per IRDA Rules and Regulations and even in that depreciation amount 1^st opposite party has already granted 10% discount from the depreciation amount.

                        21.  In the light of the above discussion and evidence, we can come to a conclusion that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and this petition can be allowable against 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Hence Point No.2 to 4 are found in favour of the complainant.

                        22.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to cure all the defects detected by Ext.C1 (Commission Report) in this case and hand over the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
2. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay the difference amount of Rs. 47,456/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand four hundred and fifty six only) (Rs.2,22,702 - Rs.1,75,246/-) to the complainant from the date of this complaint onwards with 10% interest till its realisation.
3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each to the complainant from the date of order onwards with 10% interest till its realisation.
4. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant from the date of order till its realisation with 10% interest.

                           Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2015.

                                                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                                                    P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                                   (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)          :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)             :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Beena Titus

PW2  :  Thomas Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of G.D. entry dated 13.07.2013. 

A2 :  Photocopy of advocate notice dated 03.02.2014 sent by the complainant

        to the opposite parties. 

A3  series :  Postal receipts of Ext.A2.

A4 series  : Postal acknowledgement cards of Ext.A2. 

A5 : Photocopy of invoice dated 28.10.2013 for Rs.2,47,447/-. 

A6 : Photocopy of R.C. Book of the complainant. 

A7 : Photocopy of insurance policy. 

A8 : Towing charge bill dated 13.07.2013 for Rs.3,000/-. 

A9:  Reply letter dated 20.02.2014 sent by the opposite party to the

       complainant’s advocate. 

A10 :  Photocopy of reply letter dated 25.02.2014 sent by the opposite party

          to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Suresh. N

DW2  :  Siby Melvin Sleeba

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1  :  Authorization letter

B2  :  Copy of Final Survey Report

B3  :  Copy of Satisfaction letter

B4  :  Copy of Motor vehicle insurance proposal and cover note

B5  :  General Power of Attorney Sleeba Koshy in favour of the complainant.

B6  :  Copy of bills dated 28.10.2013 for Rs.2,47,447/-

B7  :  Repair order (Job card)

Court Witness:

CW1  :  Anilkumar. G

Court Exhibits:

C1 series  :  Commission Report and 6 Photographs.

                                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Beena Titus, Flower Cottage, Karuvatta, Adoor. P.O.,

                     Pathanamthitta Dist. – 691 523.

               (2)  The Proprietor, S.S. Motors, Hyundai Authorised Dealer,

           M.G. Junction, Enathu. P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist – 691 528.

                (3)  Officer-in-Charge, Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          1^st Floor, The Ferns Icon, Sy.No.28, Doddanekkundi,

          Bangalore – 560 032.

                (4) Officer-in-Charge, Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

          H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irrungattuko Hai, Sri Perumbatur,

          Kanchipuram, Chennai – 602 105.

    (5) The Stock File.