RAFNAS P.K. S/O. RIYAS BAITHUL FALAH, NERAMPOKKU ROAD, IRITTY DISTRICT Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 OTHERS 570, RECTIFIER HOUSE NAIGAUM CROSS ROAD, WADALA WEST, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 300 of 2014, preferred by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance Company ), Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in the Complaint. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while allowing the Appeal, has, inter alia, directed the Insurance Company to depute an approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor, in whose presence Opposite Party No.3, one of the Dealers of Hyundai cars, would carry out necessary repairs of the vehicle of the Complainant and make it roadworthy; in doing so, the estimate (Ext. A9) would not be taken into account; and on submitting the final bills by the Dealer, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the same, subject to IDV limit of the vehicle in question.

(2.) The Appeal had been filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 27.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kannur (for short the District Forum ) in Complaint Case No. 357 of 2012. By the said order, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, had directed the Dealer to repair the vehicle and make it road worthy and the Insurance company to pay the estimated cost of Rs.4,66,946/- to the Dealer and Rs.1,000.00 to the Complainant as litigation costs.

(3.) By availing financial assistance of Rs.2,00,000.00 from M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., on 31.12.2011 the Complainant had purchased a new EON Magna (O) BS IV Mushroom car, manufactured by Hyundai Motor Company India Ltd., against sale consideration of Rs.3,50,783.00. The Complainant had taken an Insurance policy from the Insurance Company for the vehicle in question. The policy was valid for one year from 31.11.2011. On 06.08.2012, while the vehicle was parked in the porch of the Complainant, due to floods it was completely damaged. In order to get the vehicle repaired, the Complainant approached the Dealer, which had arranged for the Insurance policy. The representatives of the Dealer inspected the vehicle and under their instructions, it was taken to the yard of the Dealer, for which the Complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.3,250.00 towards break down service. In due course of time, on behalf of the Complainant claim application, insurance policy and estimate, at Rs.4,66,946/-, were sent by the Dealer to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company asked the Complainant to produce the vehicle for inspection but since the vehicle was with the Dealer, the same could not be done. After several requests, the Insurance Company agreed to carry out the repairs to certain extent and not as per the full estimate given. The Insurance Company was neither willing to undertake the repairs of the vehicle as per the estimate given nor to the full satisfaction of the Complainant and the Dealer was also asking the Complainant to take the vehicle, with the warning that if he did not take the same, he would be charged Rs.100.00 per day as penalty or rent for parking of the vehicle. In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practise on the part of the Opposite Parties, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainant had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to repair the vehicle to his full satisfaction and if it was not possible then to refund the amount of sale consideration with interest @ 7% p.a., besides paying Rs.35,000.00 as compensation for mental agony. The Complainant had also prayed for the reimbursement of the amount(s) paid as interest to the Finance Company as well as for litigation costs.