State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sadanandan vs Hyndai Motors on 5 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/832/2016
SADANANDAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - Aneeshbhavan, CMC-22, Cherthala P.O, Alappuzha- 688524,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
HYNDAI MOTORS
PRESENT ADDRESS - Rep. by its Managing Director,Regd. office: Plot No. 1, SIPC Industrial
park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu- 602103,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 05/12/2025
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.780/2016&APPEAL No.832/2016 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 05.12.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.227/2013 on the files of the DCDRC, Ernakulam) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPEAL No. 780/2016
APPELLANT:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Manager, Sarad Shopping Complex, Mullakkal, Alleppey - 688 011 (by Adv.T.J. Lakshmanan) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Sadanandan N.A., Aneesh Bhavanam, C.M.C.22, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha - 688 524 (by Adv. P.T. Muraleedharan& Adv. Pradeeplal S.)
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited represented by its Managing Director, Registered Office, Plot No.1, SIPC-OT Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai, Sreeperumbathur Taluk, Kanjeepuram, Tamil Nadu - 602 105
3. The Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Limited, Registered Office, Plot No.1, SIPC-OT Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai, Sreeperumbathur Taluk, Kanjeepuram, Tamil Nadu - 602 105 (by Adv. Fatima S.)
4. Popular Motor World Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, 33/2361A, Geethanjali Junction, NH-47 Bypass, Vyttila, Kochi
- 682 019
5. The Managing Director, Popular Motor World (P) Ltd., 33/2361A, Geethanjali Junction, NH-47 Bypass, Vyttila, Kochi - 682 019
6. Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Manager, Kodimatha, Kottayam South, Kottayam - 686 039 (by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil& Adv. S. Reghukumar) APPEAL No. 832/2016 APPELLANT:
Sadanandhan N.A., Aneesh Bhavan, CMC-22, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha - 688 524 (by Adv. P.T. Muraleedharan& Adv. Pradeeplal S.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Registered Office : Plot No.1, SIPC OT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu - 602 105
2. The Managing Director, Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered Office :
Plot No.1, SIPC OT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu - 602 105 (by Adv. Fatima S.)
3. Popular Motor World (P) Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, 33/2361A, Geethanjali Junction, NH-47 Bypass, Vyttila, Kochi - 682 019
4. The Managing Director, Popular Motor World (P) Ltd., 33/2361A, Geethanjali Junction, NH-47 Bypass, Vyttila, Kochi - 682 019
5. Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Manager, Kodimatha, Kottayam South, Kottayam - 686 039 (by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil& Adv. S. Reghukumar)
6. United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by its Manager, Sarada Shopping Complex, Mullackal, Alleppey - 688 011 (by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan) COMMON JUDGMENT SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER These appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.06.2016 in C.C.No.227/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam ('the District Commission' for short).
2. Appeal No. A 780/2016 is filed by the sixthopposite party in the complaint and Appeal No. A 832/2016 is filed by the complainant. As per the order dated 21.06.2016, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the sixthopposite party insurer to settle the claim within one month from the date of receipt of the order based on the estimate of repairs given by the surveyor in respect of the body repairs and engine repairs of the car with 12% interest from the date of the claim till disbursement. They were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties 1 to 5 were not found liable for any deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the said order, the sixth opposite party insurer has filed appeal No. A 780/2016. Appeal No. A 832/2016 was filed by the complainant for making the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 also liable for the loss. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same order these appeals are considered together.
3. The brief details of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai i20 ASTA car bearing registration number KL32 C4121. He purchased the vehicle from opposite parties 3 to 5 on 18.04.2011 for Rs.7,02,040/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Two Thousand and Forty only)and paid lifetime tax of Rs.42,130/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty only)also, totalling Rs.7,44,170/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Four Thousand One Hundred and Seventy only). The vehicle met with an accident near Kottayam on 24.10.2012. The vehicle was taken to the 5thopposite party's service centre who towed the vehicle from the place of accident. An estimate for Rs.1,20,660/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) was prepared by the service engineer. The vehicle was covered by the sixth opposite party insurer for the period from 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013. The accident was intimated to the insurance company who appointed a surveyor to survey and assess the loss to the vehicle. Subsequently, the service centre prepared anadditional estimate for Rs.88,828.26/-(Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Eight Twenty Six paise). The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). According to the surveyor, supplementaryestimatefor Rs.88,828.26/-(Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Eight and Twenty Six paise) was due to premature engine failure and not due to the accident and he disallowed the said claim. According to him, the damage to the engine was caused due to the running of the vehicle without engine oil during the test drive after the repairs and it has nothing to do with the accident. The car remains with the service centre from 24.10.2012 onwards due to defective service and negligent acts of the opposite parties and the complainant was unable to use the car which had till then had run only 20,000 kilometres.The accident occurred within the warranty period and the extended warranty from the first opposite party was valid till 17.04.2014. The sixth opposite party is liable to pay the compensation for the accidental damages. The damages to the engine of the vehicle was caused due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 5and hence they are liable to replace the car with a new car or refund Rs.7,02,040/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Two Thousand and Forty only) paid by the complainant at the time of purchaseplus lifetime tax of Rs 42,130/-
totalling Rs 744,170/. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint, which was later amended, praying for the accident insurance claim from the sixth opposite party and for replacing the car with a new car or to refund Rs 744,170/- with interest from opposite parties 1 to 5.
4. Notice was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filedtheir versions. The first and second opposite parties, who are the manufacturers, filed a joint version. They admitted that the vehicle was manufactured by the first opposite party. According to them, the repair works can be done on a chargeable basis alone, either under insurance or on cash payment basis. Accidental damages are not covered under warranty. There is nothing to show that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
5. The opposite parties 3, 4, and 5, who are the dealers/service centre, filed jointversion stating that the vehicle was in a toppled down condition in the accident and it had sustained extensive damages.When the estimate was prepared, there was no sign of external damage on the engine, even though there was heavy damage on the body parts. The vehicle was brought to the service centre by towing. It is only common practice that after preparing initial estimates, supplementary estimates are given later. The allegation that the engine damage occurred during test drive at the service centre is basless. The opinion expressed by the surveyor that the damage caused to the engine was not due to the accident is not correct. There is no deficiency in service on their part, and hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
6. The Sixth Opposite Party Insurance Company filed version admitting the policy covering the vehicle. According to them, immediately on receipt of the intimation of the claim, they conducted the survey through a licensed surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only), which was informed to the complainant on 14.02.2013. The complainant was advised to produce the original bill pertaining to the repairs of the vehicle for settlement as per the report of the surveyor. But he did not submit the bill which is required for settlement of the claim. The amount as per additional estimate is not payable as no engine damage was caused due to the alleged accident as reported by the surveyor. They acted only as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
7. The evidence in the complaint consists of the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. The commission report was marked as Exhibit C1. The opposite parties examined DW1 and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order. The complainant and the sixth opposite party insurer have filed these appeals, challenging the said order.
8. Heard both sides.The learned counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that immediately on receipt of the intimation of the claim they arranged the survey of the vehicle and the surveyor assessed the loss forRs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). The additional estimate for an amount of Rs.88,828.26/- pertaining to the damage to engine is not admissible as it was reported by the surveyor that it was not related to the alleged accident. As per letter dated 14.02.2013, the insurer informed the complainant about the assessment of the loss by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) and he was advised to submit the bill to enable them to settle the claim as per the survey report. They also informed the complainant that the additional estimate for Rs.88,828.26/- is not payable as reported by the surveyor. The claim could not be settled as the complainant failed to produce the bill for the repair charges of the vehicle. The learned counsel submitted that the District Commission ordered to pay the claim amount as per the estimate which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, they prayed to allow the appeal and limit their liability to the extent of the amount assessed by the surveyor.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the insurance company has not so far given the claim as approved by the surveyor and hence there is deficiency in service on their part. The vehicle is having an extended warranty given by the manufacturer up to 17.04.2014. The vehicle is lying in the workshop from 24.10.2012 onwards. The damage to the engine occurred while the vehicle was in the custody of the service centre and hence,opposite parties 3 to 5 are liable to pay the cost of the vehicle. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for replacement of the vehicle with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle with interest, compensation and costs.
10. The learned counselfor the first and second opposite party manufacturer submitted that no manufacturing defect was proved by the complainant and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The damages were occurred only due to the accident and hence the liability is on the insurer and not on the manufacturer. So, the learned counselprayed for confirming the order of the District Commission exonerating them from liability.
11. The learned counselfor the opposite parties 3 to 5 submitted that the damaged vehicle was brought to their service centre on 24.10.2012 and the estimate for repairs was given on the next day itself. It is only usual to give an additional estimate, when the repairing of the vehicle is being carried out at theworkshop.Theadditionalestimatefor Rs.88,828.26/-pertaining to engine damage was submitted to the insurance company, who illegally rejected the claim on flimsy grounds. He contended that when a car topples down upside down while driving, there are all possible chances that the engine continues to work in the upside down state. The driver will not be in a mental state to switch off the engine at the time of such accident. This will certainly lead to drainage of engine oil intake system components due to gravitational force. When engine oil is happened to enter into the intake system, it will be inhaled by the engine during suction stroke. If the engine oil enters into the engine cylinder, it will result in hydrostatic lock and consequently damaging the connecting rod, crank shaft etc. According to him these damages are consequences of the accident and the insurance company alone is liable to pay the repair charges. He submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5 when the vehicle was in the custody of their service centre. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for confirming the order of the District Commission, exonerating them from the liability.
12. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. The accident to the vehicle and the coverage of the vehicle by the sixth opposite party insurer are admitted. The vehicle is covered by the sixth opposite party insurer, vide policy no.1015023112P142942318 for the period from 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013 for an Insured's Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.5,67,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only). The accident occurred on 24.10.2012, which was during the policy period. The surveyor had already assessed an amount of Rs.52,575/- (Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) towards the repair charges of the vehicle in connection with the accident. The District Commission found deficiency in service on the part of the sixth opposite party insurer only and the opposite parties 1 to 5 were exonerated.
13. The question to be decided is whether the finding of the District Commissionthat there was deficiency in service on side of the sixth opposite party insurer is justified or not and whether they are liable to pay for the engine damages also. We are also required to consider whether there was deficiency in service on the part of other opposite parties as well.
14. Survey report was marked as Ext A2 and addendum report was marked as Exhibit A3. Exhibit A4 was the letter dated 14.02.2013 sent by the insurance company to the complainant and Exhibit A6 was the insurance policy. Repair estimate was marked as Exhibit B3. Expert commission report was marked as Exhibit C1. As per the survey report dated 16.07.2013, (Exhibit A2), the surveyor assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). He also reported that an additional estimate for Rs.88,828.26/-pertaining to the damages to the engine was given by the service centre through the insurance company. After inspection, he came to the conclusion that the engine damages were not due to the accident and hence not admissible under the policy. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the loss assessment made by the surveyor cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary. The District Commission erred in directing the sixth opposite party insurer to pay the claim as per the estimate given by the service centre.
15. As per the rulings of the various judicial authorities, the report of the surveyor is an authentic document to be considered in connection with the assessment of loss in an insurance claim. The surveyor was appointed as per section 64 UM of the Insurance Act 1938 and hence his report is to be considered unless there is any evidence of violationofcodeofconductofthesurveyor. Therelevanceof insurance survey report was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inSri Venkateshwara Syndicate V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr, (Civil Appeal No.4487 of 2004 decided on 24 August 2009)in which the Apex Court observed that "22. .......Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. ....". The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the significance of the assessment of loss by the surveyor in Khatema Fibres Ltd Vs New India Assurance by ruling that the claim was admitted by the insurer based on the surveyor's assessment and there was no arbitrary or unjustifiable repudiation by the insurer.Thus, it is settled that insurance survey report is to be considered as an acceptable document to decide about the quantum of loss in an insurance claim.
16. We are of the view that the sixth opposite party insurer is liable to pay Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) as per the survey report. However, the claim amount is not yet paid by the insurer and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the sixth opposite party for the delay in settlement of the claim. We concur with the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the sixth opposite party insurer. However, the District Commission directed the insurer to pay the amount as per the estimate, which is unsustainable. They are liable to pay only the amount as assessed by the surveyor which is Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only). We also observe that the District Commission had ordered interest @12% on the claim amount from the date of the claim, which is on a higher side.Hence, the interest has to be modified and reduced from 12% to 9%which shall be applicable from the date of the order of the District Commission. The compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) awarded by the District Commission are on the higher side and hence it is modified and reduced to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) respectively.
17. As per the amended complaint, the complainant prayed for replacing the vehicle with a new one or in case of failure on their part to do so to refund the purchase price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax paid totalling an amount of Rs.7,44,170/-(Rs.7,02,040/- + Rs.42,130/-) with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. We need to examine whether there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 5 and whether they are liable to compensate the complainant and if so, up to what extent.
18. We observe that though there was an extended warranty, the complainant was not able to prove manufacturing defect on the vehicle. In his report dated 30.09.2013 (Exhibit C1) the expert reported that there was no manufacturing defect of the vehicle.There is no material on record to fasten liability on the manufacturer. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd Vs Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, (2021 KHC Online 6110), that if there is any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorised service centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable. This was reiterated by the Apex court in Honda Cars India Ltd Vs Sudesh Berry (Live Law 2021 SC 649)and held that manufacturer cannot be held liable for any defects in the performance of a dealer or an authorised service centre. Hence, we concur with the finding of the District Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 and 2, manufacturers of the vehicle.
19. The primary issue in this case pertains to the damage to engine of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 to 5 contended that when a car topples down upside down while driving, there are all possible chances that the engine continues to work in the upside down state. If the engine is not switched off it may lead to drainage of engine oil intake system components due to gravitational force. When engine oil is happened to enter into the intake system, it will be inhaled by the engine during suction stroke. If the engine oil enters into the engine cylinder, it will result in hydrostatic lock, causing damages to connecting road, crank shaft etc. The learned counsel argued that these damages to the vehicle are consequences of the accident for which the insurer has to indemnify the complainant. We are of the view that if they had anticipated such a damage to the engine, they should have promptly given the estimate for repairing the engine also. It is all the more significant as the vehicle was taken by the service centre from the accident spot by towing, since it was not in a drivable condition. The service centre was so casual in handling the repair work and gave the estimate for engine repairs after two months, though from the nature of accident itself, they were very well aware about such an eventuality of engine damage when the vehicle was brought to them for repairs. The inaction and inordinate delay on the part of the service centre deprived an opportunity to the complainant to take up the matter regarding the claim relating to the engine damage with the insurance company at the initial stage itself. This substantiates the lapses on the part of the opposite parties 3 to 5.
20. From the reports of the expert and the surveyor we observe that the engine damage occurred while the vehicle was in the custody of the fifth opposite party's service centre and it is not related to the accident. As per exhibit C1 report, the expert reported that the engine damagewas occurred purely due to the negligent handling of the service persons at Popular Hyundai, M/s Popular Motor World Private Limited, Kodimatha, Kottayam South P.O., Kottayam - 686 039. According to him hadthey cleaned the engine parts properly before starting the engine, the incident would not have happened. He reported that there were no roofed sheets to keep all the vehicles coming for services or accident repair works and the complainant's vehicle was also parked near the compound wall without proper shelter. He further reported that the vehicle was unattended for a long period and the condition of the body parts and paint were very bad.Thus, the Exhibit C1 report pointed to the serious lapses on the part of the service centre which resulted in the damages to the engine of the vehicle. The opposite parties 3 to 5 objected to the report and submitted that the engine damage was not due to negligent handling on the part of the service centre. The service personnel of the fifth opposite party are well aware about the cause and consequences of starting the engine of the accident vehicle which was in toppled down position at the time of accident. However, they failed to identify the engine damage and submit the estimate initially or at least within a reasonable time, due to which complainant was deprived of getting the insurance claim. Hence the contentions of the opposite parties 3 to 5 are unsustainable.
21. The crux of the complaint revolves around the issue of oil mixing with the engine. There is no evidence to attribute any lapse of the complainant for the engine damage consequent to the accident. The learned counsel for the service centre, opposite parties 3 to 5, submitted that the vehicle was in an overturned position after the accident and hence there is every chance of damage to engine. It was not explained as to why estimate for engine repair was not given to the insurance surveyor immediately after garaging the vehicle or at least within a few days. The first estimate (Exhibit B3) was prepared on 25.10.2012 and the additional estimate for engine repairs was given after more than two months on 14.01.2013. There is no justification for such an inordinate delay. The addendum survey report (Exhibit A3), is about a joint meeting of the insurance officials, service centre and the surveyor and the action taken thereafter. As per the report,the Service Managerexplained thatroad test was not taken by them and stated that during the accident, engine oil from oil sump rushed to cylinder bore, which resulted in hydro lock, damaging No.1 connecting rod and its bearing. However, the body shop in charge conceded that the vehicle was taken for road test for about one kilometre. When the surveyor visited the service centre on 27.02.2013, it was stated by the body shop in charge that the engine block is kept at M/s Kuttukaran, Engine re-builders, Nagampadom, Kottayam. It was found in dismantled condition and the surveyor inspected the same and ascertained the extent of damage. He could not find any damages to the cylinders, bed plate, pistons, and oil jets. There were damages to the No.1 connecting rod and the crank shaft. According to the surveyor, without taking proper precautionary measures, immediately after the accident repair, repairer forcefully started the engine and driven the vehicle for trial. As a result, No. 1 connecting rod became bent, bearing shells damaged, crank shaft bent and the engine started knocking. He reported that this damage was avoidable, if the engine assembly was cleaned properly from inside, before starting. According to him the repairer's lapse led to such a huge loss.
22. The expert as well as the surveyor were unanimous in reporting that the service centre was responsible for the damages to the engine. The vehicle was not delivered to the complainant and is still in the custody of the service centre. When a vehicle was in a toppled down position in an accident it was incumbent on the service centre to envisage the damages to the engine as well and ascertain the possible damages.Though they submitted that such engine damage is possible in the case of overturning of vehicles,they failed to identify the damage in the early stage of repairs itself and included in the estimate. They did not even mention in the estimate dated 25.10.2012 that engine damage can be estimated only after dismantling of the vehicle and that supplementary estimate will be submitted if any damages are found. Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 3 to 5. The vehicle was all along in the service centre of the opposite parties 3 to 5from 24.10.2012 onwards and considering the bad condition of a damaged vehicle after long 13 years, repair of the vehicle now is not practical. Hencein our view, the opposite parties 3 to 5 are liable to replace the vehicle with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the vehicle to the complainant. However, as similar model of the vehicle may not be available at present, we are of the view that the opposite parties 3 to 5 are liable to pay the cost of the vehicle as on the date of the accident to the complainant.
23. We observe that the complainant had not produced the invoice to prove the price paid by him to purchase the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was used by the insured for more than one year, and the odometer reading as on 14.10.2012 as per service history was 23055 kms. Hence, he is not entitled for the full price paid by him for the vehicle. He is also not entitled for the life time tax paid by him.As per the insurance policy (Exhibit A6), which was taken a few months before the accident, the IDV of the vehicle as on the date of commencement of the policy on 17.04.2012 was Rs.5,67,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only). Hence, we are inclined to take the IDV of the vehicle as the cost of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. On the basis of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,67,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only) from the opposite parties 3 to 5. The complainant is also entitled for compensation from the opposite parties 3 to 5 for the mental agony, sufferings and inconvenience caused to him by them. We find it just and reasonable to fix a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in this regard.
In the result, Appeal Nos. A 780/2016 and A 832/2016 are partly allowed and the order dated 21.06.2016 of the District Commission in C.C.No.227/2013 is set aside. These appeals are disposed of on the following terms:
1) The sixth opposite party insurer is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.52,575/-(Rupees Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) with 9% interest from the date of the order of the District Commission, i.e. from 21.06.2016,till realisation;
2) The sixth opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five Thousand only) to the complainant;
3) The opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,67,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only)towards price of the vehicle with 9% interest from the date of the order of the District Commission,i.e. from 21.06.2016till realisation;
4) The opposite parties 3 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant;
5) The vehicle shall be retained by the opposite parties 3 to 5 and the complainant is directed to give necessary documents to them for transfer of the vehicle;
6) The liability of the opposite parties 3 to 5 shall be reduced by the amount payable by the 6th opposite party insurer to the complainant as per clause 1 above;
7) The opposite parties 3 to 5 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant;
8) The statutory deposit made by the appellants in appeal No. A 780/2016 shall be refunded to them after compliance of the order as per clause (1) and (2) above, on proper acknowledgment;
9) The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution proceedings.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
SL
..................
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
PRESIDENT
..................
SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................J
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R
MEMBER