Date of Filing 14.02.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 23.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                    …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                           ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.18/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

Mr.S.Kumaravel,

S/o.A.Subramaniam,

8A-S3, Ayshwaryam Galaxy,

Indra Nagar, Kovil Pathagai,

Chennai 600 062.                                                                                    ......Complainant.

                                                                                      //Vs//

1.Mr.Yahyakhan,

   The Great India Hardware,

   No.67, Kovil Pathagai Main Road,

   Avadi, Chennai 600 062.

2.The General Manager,

    State Bank of India,

    Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC)

    Ayyappanthangal,

    No.50, AR Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High Road,

    Ayyappanthangal, Chennai 600 056.

3.Mr.A.Vetri,

   The Commercial Claims Executive,

   SBI General Insurance Company Limited,

   3^rd Floor, “A” Block, Good Shepard Square,

   No.82, Kodambakkam High Road,

   Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

4.Mr.T.Ranjith, (Thermal Power),

    Surveyor and Loss Assessor,

   SLA-120701/IIISLA No.L/S/09685,

   (Old No.40, New No.70, MGR Road,

   Nanganallur,  Chennnai 600 061.                                                  …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                    :     Party in Person.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                           :     M/s.D.Gopinathan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                          :     Mrs.S.Priya, Advocate.

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                          :      Exparte.

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party                          :      Party in Person.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 14.11.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared party in person and M/s.D.Gopinathan, counsel for the 1^st opposite party and Mrs.S.Priya, counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party who appeared party in person and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to the excess amount received by the 1^st Opposite Party for repairing the house of the complainant and for refund of the excess amount along with a prayer to refund a sum of Rs.1,37,835/- from the 1^st opposite party along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as cost of proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the excess amount received by the 1^st Opposite Party for repairing the house of the complainant and for refund of the excess amount the present complaint has been filed.

3. The Complainant’s house got damaged by the fire accident occurred on 20.12.2022 and the 1^st Opposite Party gave a quotation for Rs.2,97,356/- for repairing the house. The complainant’s house was insured with 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties. The complainant on various dates paid a sum of Rs.2,78,414/- to the 1^st opposite party.  Final bills were given by the 1^st opposite party. However, by assessment, the surveyor T.Ranjith appointed by 3^rd opposite party Insurance company gave a Quotation for loss amounting to only Rs.1,19,338/- and also said that the Complainant was deceived for a sum of Rs.1,37,835/-. Thus it is stated that an excess amount of Rs.1,59,076/- was received by 1^st opposite party and that out of which the 1^st opposite party was ready to repay only Rs.21,241/- for the work not done by them. Thus aggrieved by the act of 1^st opposite party, the present complaint was filed for refund of a sum of Rs.1,37,835/- from 1^st opposite party along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- cost of proceedings.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1,2 &4:-

4. Crux of the defence taken by 1^st opposite party was that Complainant requested to do painting and other allied works for his house damaged on 20.12.2022 due to fire. That he gave a total Quotation for Rs.2,97,356/- which was accepted by the Complainant and made payments on various dates totalling an amount of Rs.2,78,414/-.  However, Electrical work for the value of Rs.21,282/- was pending. As the Surveyor had assessed Rs.1,19,338/- the Complainant was seeking for refund of amount alleged to have collected in excess for getting the fact that always the insurance Surveyor’s would fix lesser amount for products than the market rate of those products. The 1^st opposite party had used only good materials. Further, it was not proper for the Complainant to expect the work for the value fixed by the Surveyor. Thus, stating that there was no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party they sought for dismissal of complaint. 

5. The crux of the defence by 2^nd opposite party was that they have settled rightly the loss assessment derived by the Surveyor as per the policy terms and conditions.  Complainant could not portrait the Surveyor as an employee of the Insurance Company.  It was clear that the Surveyor had taken into consideration the cost and estimates submitted by the complainant.  Surveyor’s report was an important document and could not be brushed aside.  Hence, when the claim was settled, the complaint was a vexatious one and liable to be dismissed.

6. The 4^th opposite party who was the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company filed written version stating that he had arrived at Rs.1,19,232/- based on the physical observation and measurements and damages caused to the building.  It was submitted that the insured claim was supported with invoices and assessment made on reinstatement basis.  He thus stated that he had furnished all particulars before this Commission.

7. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A11 were submitted. On the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were submitted. On the side of 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B3 to Ex.B6 were submitted.  On the side of 4^th opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B7 to Ex.B9 were marked.  Though notice was served on 3^rd opposite party he did not appear before this Commission to file Vakalath and written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 29.08.2023 as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether the claim made by complainant against 1^st opposite party alleging that he got excess money for repairing his house than the amount assessed by Surveyor (4^th OP) amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been substantiated by sufficient pleadings and evidences?

2) If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1&2:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainants in support of their contentions;

1. Quotations given by the 1^st opposite party were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4;
2. Tax Invoices were given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant were marked as Ex.A5 to Ex.A9;
3. Statement of Account of the complainant with regard to amount transaction with the 1^st opposite party from 23.12.2022 to 13.01.2023 was marked as Ex.A10;
4. Assessment of working of loss of complainant by Surveyor and Loss Assessor dated 02.02.2023 was marked as Ex.A11;

On the side of 1^st opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

5. Photographs were marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2;

On the side of 2^nd opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

6. Policy along with terms and conditions was marked as Ex.B3;
7. Survey Report along with the annexure was marked as Ex.B4;
8. Consent letter dated 03.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B5;
9. Discharge voucher dated 03.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B6;

On the side of 4^th opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

10. Final Survey Report dated 03.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B7;
11. IRDA License pertaining to the Surveyor was marked as Ex.B8;
12. IIISLA membership pertaining to the Surveyor was marked as Ex.B9;

8. Heard the oral arguments made by complainant and the 1^st opposite party and perused the written arguments filed by both of them.

9. The main allegation by the complainant/party in Person is that the 1^st opposite party had charged an excess amount of Rs.1,37,835/- from him for renovation of his house which was damaged due to fire.

            10. However, the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party argued that only after getting quotation by the complainant and accepting the same, the complainant had made the payment and works were done for which appropriate bills were provided to the complainant.  Thus he argued that when the complainant never made allegations as to any defective work he alleged no deficiency in service on his part and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

11. Perused pleadings and evidences produced by both parties.  Arguments on the side of opposite parties 2 and 4 were closed as they did not appear inspite of opportunities.

12. This Commission arrived at the following conclusions based on the available materials;

1. As rightly pointed out by the 1^st opposite party the complainant could not expect the entire amount spent by him from the Insurance Company reimbursed;
2. The complainant also could not expect the 1^st opposite party to complete the works within the sanctioned amount from the Insurance Company when he himself admits that he had approved the quotation given by 1^st opposite party for Rs.2,97,356/- and had accordingly paid Rs.2,78,414/- to the 1^st opposite party for the renovation work;
3. The complainant for not sanctioning the exact amount spent by him for his house should only raise a claim with the Insurance Company and not with the 1^st opposite party;
4. The complainant had not raised any allegation with respect to the work done against the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, no deficiency in service could not attributed towards him;
5. It is also to be accepted that the policy is not an absolute contract but subject to terms and conditions.   Hence, the claim over and above the admissible limits provided under the policy is untenable.  The said amount could not be claimed from 1^st opposite party as a matter of right;
6. The complainant did not challenge the Survey report or settlement of claim.  Hence it attained finality.  He did not cross examine the Surveyor for assessing a lesser amount than the amount claimed;
7. As per the final invoice provided by the Surveyor, the amount comes to Rs.2,60,203/-.  However, the net computed loss was arrived at Rs.1,19,232/- as per the policy condition.  This implies that though certain amount was spent on rectification, the same amount will not be indemnified by the insurance company as the assessment is done based on policy’s terms and conditions.

Based on the above conclusions, we could not find fault with the 1^st opposite party for claiming excess amount from the complainant.  However, as per the admission made by the 1^st opposite party himself we direct them to refund the amount for the work (EB) undone by them to the complainant.  Retaining the amount for nearly one year amounts to deficiency in service.  These points answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and 1^st opposite party is directed to return the amount of Rs.21,282/- (Rupees twenty one thousand two hundred eighty two only) with 6% interest from 12.01.2023 till date of realization within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default 9% interest will be levied on the said amount from 12.01.2023 till the date of realization.  No cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 23^rd day of November 2023.

    -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 4^th opposite party:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                      PRESIDENT