D.O.F : 20/08/2022
D.O.O : 05/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.199/2022
Dated this, the 5th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Yusuf O T
Ottathayyil
West Eleri P O
Kasaragod, 671314 : Complainant
And
United India Insurance Company Ltd
Branch Office
Nithyananda Building
Kanhangad.
(Adv: K Vinod Kumar) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of the case is that on 24/01/2022, the complainant’s vehicle Bolero KL-39-J1193 met with an accident at a place called Kinar in Kunnumkayyil and the vehicle seriously got damaged. The complainant’s wife also seriously injured. The accident is informed to the opposite party United India Insurance company for the repair of the vehicle and an estimate is submitted for Rs. 3,99,235/-. The surveyor inspected vehicle and approved the estimate. Thereafter work started. Due to 6 months delay in the repair, the battery of the vehicle also got damaged. Towing charge was Rs. 7,200/- and purchase of spare parts was Rs. 3,935/-, another repair charge Rs. 2,20,000/-. The total repair charge was Rs. 3,99,235/-. The insurance company has given Rs. 1,76,300/-. The complainant was constrained to spend Rs. 2,39,435/- for repair. The complainant is claiming for the expenses spent by him, ie, Rs. 2,39,435/-.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. According to him, the complaint is false, and not maintainable at law or facts. The opposite party denies all averments in the complaint. But it is admitted that, complainant made a claim for repair of the vehicle claiming that his vehicle has been damaged in an accident. The complainant submitted an estimate of Rs. 4,00,143/-. The claim has been processed by the opposite party without any delay and requested the General Insurance Surveyor and the loss assessor to investigate and assess the loss to the vehicle. He inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages in detail and filed his report. The vehicle is of 2015 model. The declared value of the vehicle as per policy is Rs. 4,67,640/-. The final bill submitted by the complainant is for an amount of Rs. 3,92,300/-. The cost of spare parts of the vehicle replaced is subject to depreciation and the labour charges are also subject to certain deduction as per the policy. As per the policy percentage of depreciation applicable for the vehicle insured is 40% for metal parts and 50% for plastic-rubber-fiber parts. The surveyor has submitted the item wise bill cheque report and made the final assessment and filed his report and the loss assessed by him after statutory reduction is Rs. 1,77,750/- and the opposite party paid Rs. 1,73,435/- to the workshop after deducting the TDS amount and survey charges. The entire amount eligible by the opposite party as per the policy has been paid by the opposite party without any delay. There is no deficiency in service or delay on the part of opposite party in dealing with the claim of the complainant. On verification of the workshop bill, it is seen that so many additional works have been done by the complainant to the vehicle, which are not connected with the accident. The surveyor reported about the additional works done to the vehicle other than those caused by accident. The surveyor assessed all the damages caused to the vehicle due to the accident before repair in respect of each part. The left side of the vehicle alone has been damaged in the accident, but the metal part of the body which are decayed otherwise also seen replaced and the entire body has been seen painted. The amount charged for the painting alone is Rs. 60,000/- plus GST. Battery of the vehicle is not damaged in the accident. It may be caused because of the delay in repair and it is not due to any fault of the opposite party. As per the policy, maximum towing charges payable is Rs. 1,500/-, no bill is produced for towing charges and made any claim on account by the complainant. The parts damaged otherwise than the accident are also seen replaced with dishonest intention to get the amount from the opposite party by misrepresenting the facts. The intention of the complainant is to sell the vehicle after curing all its defects happened other than due to the accident also. The bill amount now shown is more than 75% of the insured value and it will have to consider as total loss, by handing over the vehicle to opposite party. The bill alleged is paid by the complainant is not incurred for the repair of the vehicle due accident alone. The amount eligible by the complainant after permissible deduction is paid and the complainant is not entitled for any further amount as claimed. The opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant for any delay in repair and battery damage or the charge paid for taking the vehicle to the showroom. The complainant and opposite party are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no basis for the claim of the complainant. Therefore the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A6. The complainant is cross examined as PW1. The opposite party produced documents which are marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Both sides heard and documents perused. The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
The case of the complainant is that, his vehicle had insurance coverage. The vehicle met with an accident at a place called Kunnumkayyil-Kinar and the vehicle got damaged. The grievance of the complainant is that, even though the accident is properly informed and the surveyor assessed the loss, full insurance coverage is not availed to the complainant. Total repair charge was Rs. 3,99,235/- out of which Rs. 1,76,300/- received from opposite party and the remaining amount, that is, Rs. 2,39,435/-, complainant was constrained to spend from his pocket. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the satisfaction note, Ext. A2 is the tax invoice, Ext. A3 also tax invoice, Ext. A4 information to opposite party regarding accident, Ext. A5 is claim form, Ext. A6 is the general diary of Chittarikkal Police Station dated 25/1/2022 regarding the accident. The opposite party also produced documents. Ext. B1 is the policy, Ext. B2 is the survey report and Ext. B3 is the invoice. As per Ext. B2, the gross amount estimated by the surveyor is Rs. 4,00,143/-. The total labour charge is Rs. 1,10,566/-. Total parts amount is Rs. 2,89,577/-. Surveyor assessed the claim for a net amount of Rs. 1,77,750/-. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that so many additional works had been done by the complainant to the vehicle which are not connected with the accident. The surveyor reported about the additional works done to the vehicle other than those caused by the accident. The amount charged for painting alone is Rs. 60,000/-. Another contention raised by opposite party is that no bill is produced for towing charges and purchases spare parts. Parts damaged otherwise than accident are also seen replaced to get the amount from opposite party by misrepresenting the facts. The bill allegedly paid by the complainant is not incurred for the repair of the vehicle due to accident alone. According to opposite party, the amount eligible by the complainant after permissible deductions is paid and the complainant is not entitled for any further amount.
The commission carefully gone through the documents and affidavit of the complainant and documents produced by the opposite party. In the version, the opposite party raised a contention that so many additional works have been done by the complainant. But the complainant has failed to adduce/produce evidence or examine the workshop manager to prove that no additional work have been done to the complainant’s vehicle other than those caused by accident. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Satisfaction note
A2 – Tax Invoice
A3 – Tax Invoice
A4 – Information to opposite party
A5 – Claim form
A6 – General diary of Chittarikkal Police Station
B1 – Policy
B2 – Survey report
B3 – Invoice
Witness cross-examined
PWI – O. T. Yoosaf
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
