IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 22^nd day of November 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member,

 Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 86/2021 (filed on 19-04-2021)

Petitioner                                   :    Abdul Kareem K.H.,

                                                       Cheeramchira House,

                                                       Changanacherry,

                                                       Kottayam -686106

                                                                      Vs.

Opposite party                           :   Vishnu Prasad M.P.,

                                                       Body Shop Manager,

                                                       Hyson Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                       Near Govt. College Nattakom,

                                                       Kottayam – 686013.

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

          The complaint is filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The case of the complaint is as follows. 

The complainant is owner of the vehicle Registered No.KL-45E-5052.  It is insured with the United India Insurance Co. Said vehicle met with an accident on 24.01.2021 at Puthuppally, Kottayam and sustained damages to the vehicle.  The said vehicle was entrusted with the opposite party to carry out the repairing works.  The vehicle was assessed by the approved surveyor of the insurance company.  The Insurance Company had to pay Rs. 45,250/- to indemnify the damages to the opposite party.   The opposite party has delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 25.02.2021 and the complainant paid Rs.89,386/- as cost of the repair works.  The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party charged Rs.15,789/- more than the amount approved by the Insurance Co. under labour charges and deducted surveyor’s  salvage and insurance recovery charges etc. Though the complainant demanded to return the excess amount, the opposite party did not heed to his request.  Hence this complaint was filed by the complainant for obtaining an order to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.15,789/-  along with cost and compensation. 

          Though the notice was duly served by the opposite party, he did not care to appear before the Commission and conduct the case.  Hence the opposite party was set ex-parte.

          For evidence purpose of the case, proof affidavit of the complainant was filed and Ext. A1 to A5 were marked by the side of the complainant. 

          On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points:

1. Whether the complainant is succeeded to prove deficiency on the part of the opposite party ?
2. Whether he is entitled to any relief ?

  The specific case of the complainant is that the vehicle bearing No.KL.45E-5052 is owned by his daughter Jasmitha Riyas.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 24.01.2021. Ext.A4 is a copy of the general diary of Kottayam East Police Station and this prove that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 24.01.2021 at Puthuppally and sustained damages.  Ext. A2 and A3 prove that the opposite party had carried out certain repair works on the said vehicle and it levied Rs.89,386/- from the complainant for the said repair works.  On going through the existing works, the surveyor of the United India Insurance Co. had approved Rs.45,250/- for the repair works and indemnified the complainant’s insurance policy coverage. As per Ext. A2 the tax invoice bill, issued by the opposite party, the opposite party has charged Rs.22,000/- as cost of the same for the head of the labour charges.  But on perusal of Ext. A1 charge it can be seen that the surveyor had sanctioned only Rs.20,060/- in the head of the labour charge.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party had charged excess amount towards the labour charges.  He did not adduce any evidence to prove that the opposite party had not carried out any repair works other than the works which were approved by the surveyor of the insurance co.  Therefore we are of the opinion that the allegation on this aspects given to be taken into merit.  Though the surveyor deducted an amount of Rs.2,219/- as salvage value Ext.A2 to A3 tax invoice which were issued by the opposite party to the complainant did not mention the deduction of the salvage value from the total charges.  Moreover vide Ext.A3 the opposite party has                             charged Rs.7,670/- as damage recovery charge from the complainant.  This was not approved by the surveyor of the insurance company.  The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not hand over the damaged parts of the vehicle to the complainant which were replaced for which the salvage value price deducted by the Insurance Company.  The opposite party have no right to retain the damaged part of the vehicle which were replaced with a new one and retained and receiving the total amount incurred for the repairing works.  Without the value of the salvage which were illegally retained by them.    It is pertained to note that in Ext.A3.  There is no explanation given by the opposite party for the purpose which Rs.7,670/- is charged in the head of damage recovery.  It is pertinent to note that damaged spare parts which are replaced to make defect free one is at the cost of the complainant, even though it is to be headed by Insurance Company.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to retain the damaged spare parts which can be either sold by opposite party or not.  Thus we are of the opinion that by retaining the salvage of the spare parts after receiving price of the replaced part, the opposite party committed deficiency itself.  There is no evidence before us that the salvage was handed over to the complainant.  Moreover by not giving a reasonable and sufficient explanation for Insurance Company charging damage recovery expenses the opposite party has committed deficiency itself.  Consumer protection Act, 2019 is framed to protect the consumers from the exploitation by the sales and service providers.  No doubt the complaint has suffered much sufferings and loss due to the above discussed act of opposite party, for which opposite party is liable to compensate. 

Considering the nature of the case and satisfaction of the complainant we allow the complaint and pass the following order.

1. We hear by direct the opposite party to pay Rs.9,889/- to the complainant along with 9% interest from 19.04.2021 that is the date on which complaint is filed till the date of realization.
2. We hear by direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.
3. We hear by direct to opposite party to pay Rs.1500/- to the complainant as cost of this litigation.

The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order following in which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of this order till the date of realization.  

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of   November, 2021.

                        Sri. Manulal V.S. President    Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member        Sd/-

                    Sri. K.M. Anto, Member         Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1- Motor Survey Report dated:19/03/2021

A2- Tax invoice dated 25/02/21for Rs.89,386/-

A3- Tax invoice dated 25/02/21 for Rs.7,670/-

A4- General Diary Abstract dated 26/01/21

A5- Registered Letter to Hyson

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                      By Order 

                  Senior Superintendent