Kerala

Wayanad

CC/08/67

V.V.Joseph,S/o Vargheese,Vathiyampally House,Narikundu.p.o.,Ambalavayal,Wayanad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd,SulthanBathery Branch,Nooranal BuildingMysore Road, Sulthan Bathe - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2008

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/67

V.V.Joseph,S/o Vargheese,Vathiyampally House,Narikundu.p.o.,Ambalavayal,Wayanad.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd,SulthanBathery Branch,Nooranal BuildingMysore Road, Sulthan Bathery
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows:
 


 

The Complainant had purchased a brand new Mahindra jeep from its authorised dealer T.V.Sundaram Ayyankar & Sons Ltd., Kozhikode on 15.12.2005. The vehicle was registered as KL 12 C 3158 and was insured with the Opposite Party with full cover wide policy number 101602/31/05/01/00004743.


 

2. On 5.4.2006, the jeep met with an accident at Malaghat in Karnataka on its way from Ambalavayal to Sringeri. The Karkala Rural Police registered FIR No. 36/06 for the accident. The accident was intimated to the Opposite Party and the vehicle wasbrought in tow for repair to the authorised service station of Mahindra & Mahindra Company, M/S T.V.Sundaram Ayyankar & Sons Ltd., Variyad, Kalpetta. The vehicle was repaired and a bill for Rs. 70,308/- was paid by the Complainant on 24.5.2006.


 

3. Even though the claim was made to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party sanctioned only a sum of Rs.20,050/- that too on 28.9.2006. Since the said amount was not the legally entitled amount to the Complainant, he did not accept the same. The Opposite Party filed a petition to the DLSA which was numbered as DLSA 648/07. The Opposite Party was not amenable to settle the matter before the DLSA. So, the petition was dismissed on 23.8.2007.


 

4. It is not proper on the part of the Opposite Party to deny the legally entitled amount to the Complainant. The Complainant was put to mental agony and other troubles due to the act of the Opposite Party. So the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.70,111/- as repairing charges with 18% from 31.5.2006. The complainant also requests for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also Rs. 1,500/- with 18% interest as the cost for bringing the vehicle to the place of repair from the site of accident.


 

5. The Opposite Party filed version admitting the policy. The Opposite Party has received the claim and a sum of Rs.20,050/- was sanctioned to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has sent an advance voucher for that amount which was refused by the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled to get the amount claimed in the petition. The surveyor has inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage sustained to the vehicle. The Complainant is not entitled to get more than what is assessed by the surveyor. So the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

6. The Complainant was examined as PW1. The modul in charge of T.V.S Company was examined as PW2. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6 on the side of the Complainant. The Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 were marked on the side of the Opposite Party.


 

7. The matters to be decided are as follows:

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief.


 

8. Point No.1:- The amount claimed by the Complainant is Rs.70,111/-. The bill issued by the service station also shows that the repairing expenses is Rs.70,308/-.  The Opposite Party has sanctioned the reduced amount of Rs. 20,050/- based on the Surveyor's report. Surveyor's report is marked as Ext.B1. Surveyor has not found out that there is no damages as estimated by the service station or the actual expense is less than the claimed amount. The Surveyor's opinion is that the cause of accident does not tally with the damages found on the vehicle. He has also noted that the driver has driven the accident vehicle which met with accident without sufficient engine oil, so the engine shell bearings etc and turbo charger (TEL India 05125 0218) are damaged. In his deposition OPW1, the Surveyor states that there is no damage to the engine. He has not mentioned damage of turbo charger or engine shell bearing in the details of damage in Ext.B1. The Surveyor's opinion is that engine has got stuck by driving it without engine oil. At the time of cross examination he has admitted that leakage of oil was caused by damage to the oil sump caused by the accident. There is no proof that the vehicle was driven after the accident. PW2 states that the vehicle was towed to the service station. OPW1 admits that if the expenses incurred for repairing or replacing the engine parts are also included, the expense would tally with the claim amount. So, the assessment of Surveyor is found in sufficient. The OPW1 has also stated that he has not written the bill amount in the report and that is worked out from the Insurance Company. So the Surveyor's report and the settlement of claim based on this report is found to be arbitrary and hence the point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.


 

9. Point No.2:- The Surveyor admits that the actual repairing expenses would amount to the claimed amount, if the damages to the engine parts also were included. So, the Complainant is entitled to get the entire claim amount of Rs.70,111/-.


 

Hence the Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant the entire claim amount of Rs.70,111/- (Rupees Seventy thousand One hundred and Eleven only) within 30 days of this order. Opposite Party has to pay an interest at the rate of 10% on the claim amount from the date of this order till payment. No order as to cost or compensation.


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st December 2008.


 


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 

MEMBER- I: Sd/-


 

MEMBER-II: Sd/-


 


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Witnesses for the Complainant:


 

PW1. V.V. Joseph. Complainant.

PW2. Dileep C.S. T.V.S Company Modul in-charge.

 

 

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:


 

OPW1. Jeevan K. V Surveyor.


 

Exhibits for the Complainant:


 

A1 Copy of Policy.

A2. True copy of first Information Report.

A3. True Copy of Motor Vehicles Accident Report. dt: 06.04.2006.

A4 Series. (5 sheets) Copy of Bills.

A5. Copy of Letter. dt:02.06.2006.

A6.(2 sheets) Letter and Settlement Intimation Voucher.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:


 

B1.(6 sheets) Motor Survey Report (Final) dt:12.8.2006.

B2.(16 numbers) Photos.


 




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW