KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.114/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 1.7.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.No.181/02 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN :MEMBER M/S National Insurance Company Ltd., : APPELLANT Divisional Office, Kayamkulam, Represented the Sr.Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, St.Joseph’s Press Building, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs. 1. The Secretary, Consumer Protection Council of Kerala, : RESPONDENTS Karthikappally Taluk Committee, Kayamkulam. 2. Dr.G.Karunakaran Pillai, Kumpalathu House, Cheppad-P.O. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.181/02 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a further sum of Rs.43455/- with interest at 9% from 20.8.01 and also to pay compensation of Rs.4000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. It is the case of the complainants ie. Secretary of the Consumer Protection Council, Kayamkulam and the owner of the car with registration No.KL-4H9897 that he purchased the car on 28.12.2000 for a sum of Rs.3,33,644/-(Hundai Sandro) hit against by a tanker lorry on 8.2.01. The vehicle had comprehensive coverage with the appellants. The car was taken to nearest service station ie Autocat as per the directions of the opposite party. The claim was preferred on 4.4.01. On 15.6.01 the appellants informed that 98 items of spare parts are to be replaced and the labour charge is estimated at Rs.25000/-. The complainant was forced to take the dismantled car to the MGF motors, Kottayam. The repair was completed in two months as per the directions of the Surveyor. The total bill amount came to 1,36,702/-. But the opposite party paid only Rs.95,826/-. The complainant had to pay Rs.40876/-. The repair was delayed for about six months. The car was purchased with financial assistance. The complainant had to pay to the workshop a sum of Rs.43,455/-. He has claimed the above amount +Rs.1800/- as towing charge +Rs.6000 allegedly paid to Autocat and also Rs.30000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party has denied the entire allegations. There was no delay on the part of the opposite party. On reinspection it was found the 20 items out of 98 recommended for replacement were not replaced and 8 items included in the final bill were not made available to the Surveyor. That is why the net amount was assessed as 95826/-. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2; RWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P9 and Exts.B1 to B10. 5. The Forum found that the complainant is entitled in the entire amount claimed ie.Rs.43455/-. 6. It is further contended that the complainant has signed the voucher in full and final settlement and hence he is not entitled to reagitate the matter. 7. PW1 the complainant has filed proof affidavit and has proved Exts.P1 to P9. We find that it is specifically alleged in the complaint itself that he had no other alternative but to sign in the voucher as he wanted the car to be released from the workshop at the earliest. He has immediately taken up the matter to the head office of the company and the Insurance Ombudsman. Hence we find the contention that the complainant had signed the voucher in full and final settlement cannot be upheld. 8. It is seen that the car is a brand new one and that just after one month of the date of purchase it has met with the accident and sustained extensive damages. Ext.B5 survey report would itself show that the body of the car including-glass, gril, fender, bonnet, lights, wiring, battery, switch mirror, wiper meters, right hand front strut, steering and column and shaft steering bent, engine mounting assembling, air cleaner, hose accelerator, throttle, radiator assembling, fan cooling, motor cooling fan, AC unit and parts chassis were damaged. As pointed out by the complainants/respondents the case of the appellant vide Ext.B6 reinspection report, the 20 parts that had not been replaced and 8 items not recommended were replaced is incorrect. The 20 items mentioned in Ext.B6 and the 8 items that is allegedly not recommended for replacement are the items with respect which damages has been noted in Ext.B5 survey report. We find that the claim has been supported by purchase bills. It is not disputed that MGF Motors, Kottayam is an authorised workshop of the particular car. PW2 Deputy Manager of the MGF motors have asserted that the entire 98 parts mentioned in Ext.P5 were damaged and the same were replaced and that otherwise the car could not be repaired and made ready to drive. It has come out in evidence that the surveyor has taken photographs but the same were not produced. There is no justification for reducing the labour charge also. The evidence of RW1 the surveyor is not at all helpful to sustain the case of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is based on the assumption that the workshop personnel in every case would show enhanced amount in the bill. There is no case that the complainant was not made to pay the amount covered by the bill. The amount paid as per Ext.P3 bill is Rs.1,36,702/- The appellants has paid only Rs.95826/-. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40876/- which has not paid by the appellant. We find that the amount claimed in excess of the sum of Rs.40876/- is not supported by evidence as such. Hence we find that the 2nd complainant will be entitled only Rs.40876/- with 9% interest from 20.8.01, ie, the date of payment by the complainant to the workshop. As interest has been awarded the order to pay compensation of Rs.4000/- is set aside. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant would pay sum of Rs.40876/- with interest at 9% from 20.8.01 and also cost of Rs.500/- as ordered by the Forum. The amount is to be paid within nthree months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount will carry interest at 12%. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
