D.O.F:03/09/2020
D.O.O:05/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.104/2020
Dated this, the 5th day of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Noufal. S.A, aged 37 years,
S/o Syed Aboobacker,
Mashoor Manzil, Choorimoola, : Complainant
Muliyar Village and Post,
Kasaragod District- 671542
(Adv. Giriprasad.P & K. Abdul Nasir)
And
- Zain Motors,
Near Chandragiri Bridge,
Kasaragod District,
Kerala- 671 121
(Adv. Babuchandran .K): Opposite Parties
- Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd,
- rd floor building No.2253
Maveli Road, Kadavanthra,
Cochin, Kerala- 682020
(Adv. Santhosh Thomas)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The grievance of the Complainant is that he is the RC owner of the Auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KL 14 Y 6685. The Complainant purchase the auto rickshaw from Opposite Party No.1 on 06/11/2019 for Rs.1,96,000/-. The Opposite Party arranged loan from Bajaj Finance for Rs.1,68,000/- to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs.5,268/- and the complainant paid Rs.28,000/- in cash. The Opposite Party No.1 induced the complainant to pay Rs.9,031/- as insurance premium to Opposite Party No.2. So that they will compensate for the entire loss without collecting any additional amount as depreciation/ deduction in case of accident and the vehicle will be delivered without any further payment. Accordingly the complainant paid the Rs.9,031/- as insurance premium and got the vehicle insured with Opposite Party No.2 for a period from 13/11/2019 to 12/11/2020. This vehicle is the only source of income for the complainant.
The aforesaid autorickshaw met with an accident on 16/07/2020 at Kumbala and the vehicle got damaged. The vehicle was taken to the showroom of Opposite Party No.1 for repair. The Opposite Party No.1 again re assured to deliver the vehicle after repair without making any payment. At the time of delivery of the vehicle Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.12,000/- as the total bill amount was Rs.24,000/- out of which Opposite Party No.2 paid only Rs.12,000/- when the complainant reminded him their earlier promises, the Opposite Party No.1 was not ready to heed the same. Since the delay would cause heavy loss to the complainant, he paid Rs.12,000/- and took delivery of the vehicle. The policy was a bumper to bumper package policy and as per the policy Opposite Party No.2 is bound to pay full repair charge without deduction. The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No.1. The act of Opposite Party No.1 caused financial loss, mental agony and physical hardship to the complainant for which he is seeking a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with refund of Rs.12,000/- with cost of Rs.15,000/-.
The Opposite Party No.1 filed version admitting the purchase of autorickshaw from Opposite Party No.1. But Opposite Party No.1 denied that he had arranged finance from Bajaj finance and suggested to insure the vehicle with Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 further denied that they had promised to the effect that if the complainant pays Rs.9,031/- as insurance premium, Opposite Party No.2 would compensate the entire loss without collecting any additional amount in case of accident or damage. The Opposite Party No.1 also denied that on 16/07/2020 the autorickshaw met with an accident and the vehicle got damaged. It is true that the vehicle was taken to the showroom of the first Opposite Party but the further averment that the First Opposite Party assured to deliver the vehicle after repair without making any further payment is denied. It is further denied that at the time of delivery of the vehicle after repair the first Opposite Party demanded Rs.12,000/- stating that the opposite Party No/.2 paid only Rs.12,000/- out of the total bill of Rs.24,000/-. According to the Opposite Party No.1 he is the dealer of Bajaj Autorickshaw and since it is a dealership several Officials of finance Companies and insurance companies are visiting their show room every day and they are directly consulting the customers. The Opposite Party has no role and the first Opposite Party never suggested the name of any financier or insurer. The Opposite Party No.1 promptly repaired the vehicle and the total price of spare parts and labour charge was Rs 15,969/-. The complainant paid the entire amount and took delivery of the vehicle. On verification it is learned that Opposite Party No.2 has paid Rs.12,000/- only to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has not collected Rs.24,000/- from the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has given a service estimate to the tune of Rs.22,140/- on 17/06/2020. But after repair the cost of repair is Rs.15,969/- only. The price of spare parts is Rs.10,376/- and the labor charge is Rs.5,593/-. The complainant had done other wooden work and top work of the autorickshaw from Mookambika Auto works, Adukkathbayal Kasaragod. The wooden work and top work are not covered under insurance policy. If the complainant has got any grievance. It has to be claimed against Opposite Party No.2 alone. There is no deficiency of service on the Part of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No 1 has not adopted any unlawful trade practice. Therefore the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 may kindly dismissed.
The Opposite Party NO.2 filed written statement. According to him purchase of the Autorickshaw bearing No. KL 14 Y 6685 and the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party are admitted. It is true that the vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle got damaged. The Opposite Party No. denied the suggestion that he advised the complainant to pay insurance assuring that this Opposite Party No.2 would compensate the entire loss without collecting any additional amount as depreciation. The complainant paid Rs.9,031/- as insurance premium and got the vehicle insured with the Opposite Party No.2 for a period from 13/11/2019 to 12/11/2020. He further denies the accident of the vehicle and damage. As per the claim submitted by the complainant the date of alleged accident is on 17/06/2020. It is not known to this opposite Party No.2 whether Opposite Party No.1 assured to deliver the vehicle after repair free of cost. It is not true that at the time of delivery of the vehicle first Opposite Party demanded Rs.12,000/- stating that Opposite Party No.2 paid only Rs.12,000/- out of the total bill of Rs.24,000/-. It is not true that since the policy is a bumper to bumper package policy Opposite parties bound to pay full repair cost. The amount entitled to the complainant has been properly released to opposite Party No.1 as per the policy stipulation. After deducting depreciation of an amount of Rs.11,872/- has been released towards repair charges of autorickshaw of the complainant. As per the bill produced by the complainant total bill amount is Rs.5,593/- + Rs.10,376/- = to Rs.15,969. The admitted liability of Opposite Party No.1 is Rs.11,872/- only. An amount of Rs.4,097/- is deducted from original bill produced by complainant. The amount claimed by the complainant is very high excessive and imaginary. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC, Ext.A2 is the copy of insurance certificate, Ext.A3 is the copy of tax invoice (labour) issued by Opposite Party No.1. Ext.A4 is the Copy of tax invoice (spare parts) issued by Opposite Party No.1.
The issues raised for consideration are :-
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issue No.1 to 3 can be discussed together.
The case of complainant is that he purchased an autorickshaw from Opposite Party No.1, who induced the complainant to insure the vehicle with Opposite Party No.2 as they are in tie up with Opposite Party No.2and if the vehicle is insured with Opposite Party No.2 they will repair and restore the vehicle without complicated formalities incase of accident. Thus the complainant paid Rs.9,031/- as insurance premium to Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter the autorickshaw met with an accident at Kumbla and the vehicle got damaged. The vehicle was taken to the show room of the Opposite Party No.1 for repair. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of delivery of the vehicle after repair the first Opposite Party demanded Rs.12,000/- stating that Opposite Party No.2 paid only Rs.12,000/- out of the total bill of Rs.24,000/-. Thus the complainant was constrained to pay Rs.12,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 and took delivery of the vehicle, as the vehicle is the only source of income of the Complainant.
According to Opposite Party No.2 the amount entitled for the Complainant has been properly released to him. Ext.A2 is the policy during the insurance period as per Ext.A2. There is a confusion regarding the date of accident whether it is on 16/07 or on 17/07 but both these dates will come within the policy period. The allegation of the complainant on the basis of Ext.A2 document is that though the accident is occurred during the existence of policy Opposite Party No.1 constrained him to pay Rs.12,000/- as repair charge. This act of Opposite Party No. 1 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Though both Opposite Parties filed written statements and documents they did not adduced any evidence to disprove the case of the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. The act of Opposite parties caused financial loss and mental strain to the complainant. Both Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the loss and agony under gone by the Complainant. The complainant is entitled for relief. In the absence of contra evidence this commission holds that Opposite Party No.1 is bound to refund Rs.12,000/- with compensation and cost. This Commission hold that an amount of Rs.15,000/- would be a reasonable compensation towards the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.
Therefore the complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Parties to refund Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) along with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) along with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Both Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Copy of RC
A2: Copy of Insurance certificate
A3: series Tax invoice
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Noufal. S.A
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
