Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/84/2016

R. Swarupa Lakshmi, D/o. R. Mohan Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijayabharathi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Passenger Car Dealer, Rep. By its authorized Agent - Opp.Party(s)

R.Swarupa Lakshmi

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                           Filing Date:-03-09-2016                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:  31-03-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

              PRESENT:- Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                                      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

                                   FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.84/2016

Between

R. Swarupa Lakshmi,

D/o. R. Mohan Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 23 years,

Residing at D.No. 1/35A,

Nadavalur Village & Post,

R.C.Puram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                   … Complainant

 

And

1. Vijayabharathi Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.,

      Passenger Car Dealer,

      Rep. by its Authorized Agent,

      9-27, Krishna Reddy Nagar,

      Thanapalli Road,

      Near Mango Mart,

      Tirupati – 517 503,

      Chittoor District.

 

2. National Insurance Company Ltd.,

      Rep. by Mr. K.L.Reddy,

     Assistant Manager,

     Divisional Office,

     No.19-8-8D, 3^rd Floor,

     Harsha Towers,

     Annamaiah Circle,

     Tirupati – 517501,

     Andhra Pradesh.                                                                        … Opposite parties

 

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.03.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing for complainant party in person Sri. G.Guruprasad, counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri. D. Damodar Reddy, counsel for the opposite party no.2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the entire loss of Rs.9,740/- incurred by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony  and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and costs of the  litigation.

        2.The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant submits that she has purchased a Nano Car for a sale price of Rs.1,55,000/- and the said car has been insured with opposite party No.2 under policy No.55270031156160019218 and the policy period starts from 15.02.2015 to 30.04.2016. The complainant submits that on 24.05.2016 at about 5.30Pm she herself and her father were proceeding to their house in their car when they reached nearer to their house the dog was suddenly came to the car to avoid the accident and she turned the car to right side due to that impact her car hit the wall of her house and her car was damaged. Immediately she informed to the opposite party No.1 to get it repaired and handed over the vehicle on 27.04.2016 to the opposite party No.1 and they retained the vehicle with them till 05.06.2016 for one month 8days for small repairs and they levied a bill for her vehicle and asked  the complainant to pay the same and the complainant stated that her vehicle got insurance coverage. Hence she is not liable to be pay any amount for repair charges and also the complainant submitted that the 1^st opposite party gave an estimation of repairs and spares for Rs.62,470/-. But not replaced that much of spares to her vehicle. The complainant informed to the same opposite party No.2 and the 2^nd opposite party appointed the surveyor and filed the report and finally the opposite party No.1 gave the invoice for the total repair charges is Rs. 8,680/- and the insurance company i.e. opposite party No.2 paid an amount of Rs.4,740/- has to be paid by the complainant. Hence the opposite party No. 1 and 2 have not discharged their duties and there is deficiency of service on part of them towards the complainant. From the date of the accident the complainant suffered a lot to get it repair and by engaging other vehicles and taxis by spending Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance charges for visiting opposite party No. 1 and 2 and also for her personal works. Hence she caused a legal notice on 06.07.2016 demanded the opposite parties to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,740/- which was collected from her and also she claimed the amount paid towards conveyance charges to visit them, after receipt of the same they have not responded positively. Hence she filed the present complaint.

         3. The opposite party no.1 and 2 came into appearance and filed their written versions separately. The opposite party no.1 filed the written version and contended that the complainant has not purchased the Nano Car from their showroom and they have not receive any sale consideration from the complainant and they are only the authorized dealer of Tata Passenger Cars at Tirupati and further contended that nowhere  in the complaint she was stated that where she  has purchased the car and taken delivery of the vehicle and as seen in the registration certificate of the vehicle it is mentioned as the date of registration is 09.06.2014 and the year of manufacturing is mentioned as April, 2013 hence the said car was purchased by the complainant in the year 2014 itself.

         The opposite party no.1 further contended that the complainant handed over the vehicle for repairs in their service centre on 27.04.2016 and requested them to give the estimation slip for the overall damages of the vehicle. hence they gave estimation to the overall damages of the vehicle for Rs.62,470/- and sent the report to the opposite party no.2 for approval. In turn the opposite party no.2 sent their surveyor to examine the damaged vehicle and sent estimates for approval and to start work. However the opposite party no.2 gave approval for front damages only of the vehicle for Rs.3,940/- out of total repair charges of Rs.8,680/- for front damages of the vehicle and same was intimated to the complainant and requested to pay the balance amount (Rs.8,680 – 3940= 4740). The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.4,740/- on 06.06.2016 and took the delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 further contended that they have acted according to the insurance company approval for which the correspondence was taken place for above 39 days for their approval from 27.04.2016 to 05.07.2016 and it does not amount any delay as alleged. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them and also further contended that the complainant has not filed any proof of conveyance charges she was spent except the oral allegations. Hence there is no liability on part of them for claiming Rs.21,740/-. Hence the complaint is dismissed against the opposite party no.1as there is no deficiency of service on part of them.

         4. The opposite party no.2 filed the written version by denying the allegations mentioned in the complaint except those are specifically admitted herein and stated that they came to know about alleged accident on 27.04.2016 only, even though the said accident took place on 25.04.2016 at about 5.30 Pm. Immediately after claim intimation received from the complainant they appointed surveyor to assess the damage of the vehicle. Basing on the instructions of them, their surveyor inspected the vehicle in the service centre of opposite party no.1 and instructed the opposite party no.1 to issue estimated tax invoice for the damages caused to vehicle. The opposite party no.1 who effected repairs for the damaged vehicle to the gross amount of Rs.8,680/- and there after the surveyor submitted summary assessment of damages to be paid to the complainant at Rs.4,860/-. The opposite party no.1 further contended that the surveyor has not properly calculated the loss basing on the age of the vehicle and arrived depreciation of the spare parts. Further he allowed 5% depreciation on spare parts than 10% under Indian Motor Tariff as under private car Package Policy. As the vehicle involved in the accident is more than two years old. Hence the opposite party no.2 after careful scrutiny they allowed claimed for Rs.3,940/- for the actual loss sustained by the complainant and settlement of said claim was duly acknowledged by the complainant and accepted by her in full and final satisfaction in discharge of all claims under policy. Hence the complainant is estopped from making any further claim in respect of vehicle hence she is not entitled for any claim. As such there is no deficiency of service on part of them in settling of the claim of the complainant. And as far as relief is concerned the complainant  has not filed any documentary proof to support the contention hence prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

         5.  The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex:A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of her. On behalf the opposite party No.1 one Kobaka Guru Prasad,               S/o. K. Subramanyam, Service Manager of opposite party No.1 filed his evidence on affidavit. On behalf of the opposite party no.2 one K.S.R.C.S. Vidya Sagar, S/o. Late     K. Radha Krishna Murthy, Deputy Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf them Ex:B1 to B4 were marked. Both complainant and opposite party No.1 filed their written arguments. Opposite party No.2 filed memo stating that their written version may be treated as their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6.  Now the points for consideration are:             

             (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as

                  Complained by the complainant?

             (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

             (iii) To what Relief?

         7. Point No:-(i).  There is no dispute regarding the accident of the vehicle of the complainant on 25.04.2016 at about 5.30Pm and also there is no dispute regarding the policy taken by the complainant bearing No.5527003115611600192 for the vehicle bearing No.AP03BH8707 and same was admitted by the opposite party No.2. The main contention of the complainant is immediately after the accident she intimated to the opposite party No.1 and handed over the car to the opposite party No.1 on 27.04.2016 for effecting repairs and stated that opposite party No.1 retained the vehicle with them till 05.06.2016 for one month eight days for small repairs.

         The complainant further stated that actually the opposite party no.1 gave estimation of repairs and spares for Rs.62,470/- but not  replaced the spares mentioned in the estimation slip. Finally the opposite party No.1 gave invoice for total repairs for Rs.8,680/- and insurance company paid Rs.3,940/- and remaining balance of Rs.4,740/- was paid by her. Hence the opposite party No.2 has not done their duty by indemnifying loss which is nothing but deficiency in service.

         The counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant handed over the vehicle to their service centre on 27.04.2016 and asked them to give the estimation for the whole damages of the vehicle and accordingly they have issued estimation slip for Rs.62,470/-. But the insurance company surveyor gave approval for the front damages of the vehicle of Rs.3,940/- out of total estimation is Rs.8,680/- and remaining Rs.4,740/- was paid by the complainant on 06.06.2016 and took the delivery of the vehicle. Hence there are no latches on part of them since the correspondence taken place with opposite party no.2 for the approval from 27.04.2016 to 05.07.2016 the time was taken for 39 days and it is not willful default. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party no.1.

         8. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that the complainant informed them on 27.04.2016 immediately they have appointed surveyor to assess the damages of the vehicle. The said surveyor inspected the vehicle in the service centre of the opposite party no.1 and instructed the opposite party no.1 to issue estimate tax invoice for the front damages caused to the vehicle and the opposite party No.1 who did repairs for the damaged vehicle issued invoice for Rs.8,680/- and there after the surveyor submitted summary assessment of the damages to be paid to the complainant at Rs.4,860/- . The counsel for the opposite party No.2 further contended that the calculation arrived by the surveyor has not properly calculated basing on the age of the vehicle and arrived depreciation on spare parts @ 5% depreciation than 10% as the vehicle was two years old by the date of the accident. Hence further they have scrutinized carefully and allowed the claim for Rs.3,940/- and the complainant by accepting the said claim she signed in the full satisfaction memo by accepting the said claim. And also stated that once she has signed in the full satisfaction she is estopped for making further claim as she is not entitled for any claim. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them as already the claim was settled and accepted by the complainant. But as per Ex:B4 which clearly shows that for some spare parts the surveyor deducted 5% depreciation and for some other spare parts he has calculated 50% depreciation which is not at all acceptable. Once the surveyor was appointed to assess the value of the loss, the company has to confine to the surveyor report. But in this particular case the opposite party no.2 has recalculated upon the surveyor calculation and deducted for some spare parts with 10% depreciation and 50% depreciation for some other parts.

            The opposite party no.2 further stated that once the complainant signed in the full satisfaction she stopped for making further claim. But as per Ex:B2 which is said to be full satisfaction memo shows that it was filled up by opposite party no.2 subsequently after taking signature from the complainant. Hence it cannot be considered.

            Hence it is not just and proper on part of the opposite party no.2 which is nothing but un fair trade practice towards the policy holder who paid the premium, which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2.     

          The opposite party no.1 who is the service centre promptly intimated to the opposite party no.2 and processes the claim and waited for the approval and effect the repairs. Hence we cannot throw blame on part of the opposite party no.1 as there is delay on part of the opposite party no.2 for considering the claim of the complainant. And also the complainant stated that the opposite party retained her vehicle in the garage nearly one month. Hence because of non availability of the vehicle she depends on private transport for conveyance and spent for Rs.5,000/- but, in order to prove that she has not filed any documentary proof that she spent the above said amount. Hence on those circumstances we cannot hold any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1.  

        In view of the discussion made above we hold deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

       9. Point(ii):-    The counsel for the complainant pointed out that the invoice of the for Rs.8,680/- for repairs was issued by opposite party no.1, out of Rs.8,680/-. The opposite party no.2 allowed Rs.3,940/- and remaining amount of Rs.4,740/- was paid by the complainant, hence she claimed the above said Rs.4,740/-. As per surveyor report the total amount allowed is for Rs.6,902/- for spare parts by deducting 10% depreciation it comes to (Rs.6212-3940=2272). The opposite party no.2 have not explained in the surveyor report how they calculated depreciation of 50% for some spare parts. Hence by calculation of  10% depreciation for all spare parts is fit and proper in this particular case. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.2272/- towards the claim and also she is entitled for Rs.9% interest from the date of the complaint till realization. The complainant claimed Rs.5,000/- toward conveyance charges for engaging  private conveyance. But, she has not filed any document to that effect hence it cannot considered. The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- for compensation, but in this particular case the Forum feels fit to allow Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service.

      10.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion under points 1 and 2 we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2, and the complainant is  entitled for the reliefs , as such the complaint is to be allowed.

          In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.2,272/- (rupees two thousand two hundred and seventy two only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization. The opposite party No.2 further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party No.2 further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) also shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization. The claim against the opposite party no.1 is dismissed.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of March, 2017.

          Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/-     

    Lady Member                                                                                                      President           

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  R.Swarupa Lakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed).                  

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Kobaka Guruprasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2:  K.S.R.C.S.Vidya Sagar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s                

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Registration Certificate for the vehicle being No. AP03BH8707.
	Job slip (Customer Copy) issued by respondent No.1. Dt: 25.04.2016.
	Tax Invoice issued by respondent No.1 in Original. Dt: 27.05.2016.
	Estimation for the repairs of car bearing No.AP03BH8707. Dt: 27.04.2016.
	Receipt in Original (Receipt No: 215) for payment of Rs.4,740/- for the repairs of vehicle. Dt: 06.06.2016.
	Mail copy (Photo copy) of Claim approval for accident vehicle.
	Legal notice issued to the O.P.’s on 06.07.2016.
	Photo copy of Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule. Dt: 28.04.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	The attested true copy of the policy issue to the complainant and vehicle No.AP03BH8707 along with the terms and conditions of the private car package policy.
	Advance claim discharge voucher (Original) for Rs.3,940/- towards the claim No.552200/31/Dt:09.06.2016 in respect of the damage vehicle covered under the policy issued to vehicle No.AP03BH8707.
	Duplicate copy of Receipt No.215, Dt: 06.06.2016 for the balance amount of repair charges i.e., Rs.4,740 issued to complainant by the opposite party No.1.
	Insurance Surveyor/Loss assessor Motor final Survey Report, Dt: 27.05.2016 done by Mr. K.N. Reddy.

 

 

                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                              President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                                  // BY ORDER //

 

                                           Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant.

                  2) The Opposite parties.