National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Palamkuklampu Sethu Madhavan ... vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 March, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4839 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 03/10/2008 in Appeal No. 1801/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. PALAMKUKLAMPU SETHU MADHAVAN RANGANADHAM through Lrs. S/o. Sethuy Madhavan Permnent Residnet of Satyanarayanapuram ongole . Prakasam ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Trunk Road Ongole , Prakasam ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kishore Rawat and Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocates Dated : 26 Mar 2019 ORDER C.VISWANATH
1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1801/2017 dated 03.10.2008.
2. According to the Petitioner/Complainant, he purchased TATA SAFARI Dicor AP 03 TV 4999 in 2006 under full option at Rs.11 lakhs on road. The Petitioner obtained finance for purchasing the vehicle from Union Bank of India, Ongole and the Petitioner was paying an amount of Rs.15,550/- as monthly instalment to the Bank. The Bank financed the vehicle for Rs.7,42,590/-. The Respondent Insurance Company issued a policy with No. 621100/31/06/00000687 valid from 17.05.2006 to 16.05.2007. The Respondent valued the vehicle at Rs.9,24,361/- and the Petitioner paid a premium amount of Rs.39,711/- towards insurance of the vehicle. On 02.08.2006, the son of the Petitioner went to Nellore, and while heading to Kanipakam, at Chinthareddy Palem Village cross Road, the driver lost control due to which the vehicle turned turtle at 7:50 a.m. The inmates of the vehicle sustained injuries. Due to the turtle, the total body of the vehicle, including the chassis got badly damaged. The son of the Petitioner lodged a complaint at Balaji Nagar Police Station, Nellore and the Police registered a case in Crime No. 87/2006. The accident was intimated to the office of the Respondent at Nellore. The surveyor deputed by the Respondent Company visited the spot, inspected the vehicle and also took photographs of the damaged vehicle. Later the vehicle was shifted to M.G. Brothers Showroom at Nellore. The technicians who attended the damaged vehicle at the showroom found that the total body of the vehicle was damaged. They informed the Petitioner that even if the vehicle was repaired, the vehicle would not have proper tyre alignment, tyre mileage and also further informed that the vehicle will not give good oil mileage. They also opined that the AC system in the vehicle would not be as effective as that of a new vehicle. The Petitioner filed the estimation given by the M.G. Brothers Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Nellore. Police filed charge sheet against the vehicle. The vehicle was kept in the showroom since 02.08.2006. No repairs were carried out to the vehicle as the Respondent did not give instructions despite several requests and legal notice. The Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Respondent on 06.11.2006 and the Respondent received the same on 10.11.2006. The Petitioner submitted the entire record with full particulars and details but the Respondent did not pay the amount demanded by the Petitioner. Thus, the Complaint was filed claiming Rs.9,24,361/- with interest @24% per annum from the date of submission of claim form and further to direct the Respondent to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner for causing mental agony and physical suffering.
3. The Respondent contested the Complaint by filing Written Statement in which it was contended that it was not possible to settle claim without submission of the required documents and bills. The Respondent submitted that the Surveyor who visited the damaged vehicle in the showroom assessed the loss at Rs. 2,86,574/- and the Petitioner claimed Rs.9,24,361/-. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The assessment issued by M/s M.G. Brothers Show Room, Nellore was self-serving document which was brought by the Petitioner to pursue his wrongful gain. The assessment made by the licensed Surveyor who was appointed by the Respondent would be the basis for the Respondent to settle the claim. The Respondent was ready to settle the claim as per the Surveyor's Report. It was further reiterated that there was no cause of action for filing this Complaint and the Petitioner approached the District Forum in a premature stage as the Respondent had never denied and did not repudiate the claim of the Petitioner. Thus, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on its part.
4. District Forum, vide order 11.04.2007, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that failure of payment to the insured vehicle after the accident, inspite of the Surveyor Report, shows clear deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 6,62,820/- to the Petitioner towards the damage of vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TV 4999 with subsequent interest @9% p.a. from 23.10.2007 till the date of realization, Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
5. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 03.10.2008, partly allowed the Appeal of the Respondent directing the Petitioner to handover the vehicle to the Respondent in order to dispose the vehicle. The other aspects of the order of the District Forum were confirmed. Both the parties were further directed to comply with the order within 4 weeks.
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. They reiterated their respective contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
7. As seen from the above, there was no dispute as to the Registration of the vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident and was sent to the workshop for repair. Repair assessment of Rs.6,97,820/- made by the workshop was higher than that of the Surveyor, Rs.2,86,574/-. The Petitioner was insisting on the former claim while the Respondent sought to settle at the later amount. The vehicle was a brand new one and within a few months, had a major accident.
8. The Surveyors report on damage of vehicle reads thus: -
"Front bumper was pressed, crumpled and cracked. Front grills were cracked. Front right fender was crumpled along with support panels. Bonnet was crumpled and twisted, locks and hinges were bent. The member was bent .Wind shield glass was broken and frame was twisted. Right front and rear doors were badly crumpled, twisted and bent, locks and hinges were bent, glass were broken, handles were bent and cracked. Rear right quarter panel was badly crumpled, fixed glass was broken, right running board was bent and twisted, back door was pressed, bent and twisted, door fixing frame was twisted. Left rear door was pressed and crumpled, quarter panel, front fender and front door were slightly pressed and bent. Roof panel was pressed and crumped, centre posts and doors posts were bent. Floor panel was pressed, twisted and crumpled. Rear bumper was pressed and cracked on left. Foot boards on both sides were bent. Right head amp was broken. Fog lamp was broken. Left head lamp body was cracked. Right long member of the chasis was pressed inside at the centre due to which left long member was pushed outwards. 3 Nos. cross members were pressed and bent. Wiper arm and blades were cut. Dash board panel was pressed and scratched. Radiator fan shroud was cracked, radiator hoses were cut. Cabin beds were cut, Body side mouldings were cut. Tail lamps were cracked. Horn was broken."
9. It is very clear from the above that the damage was very severe and near total. The report of the Surveyor of the cost of each replacement, was without much basis, while the workshop gave all the necessary details. The District Forum and State Commission have rightly arrived at the compensation amount based on the report of the workshop. The only difference between the orders of the two Fora is that the State Commission has ordered the return of the vehicle to the Respondent. We are unable to agree with the State Commission, as compensation is being given for the repair of the vehicle and no new vehicle or its replacement has been ordered to be given.
10. In view of the above, Revision Petition is dismissed upholding the order of the District Forum.
...................... ANUP K THAKUR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER