SHAJUDEEN A. AYATHIL MULLAKKAL HOUSE, POOVAPPARA, KONNI POST Vs. MANAGER, INDUS MOTORS PVT. LTD. AND 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 12.07.2013 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 326 of 2012.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that the Petitioner/Complainant was the registered owner of Maruti Alto Car. The vehicle met with an accident on 21.10. 2009. It was having a valid comprehensive insurance policy and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 1,62,126/-. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner informed the Opposite Party/Respondent, who deputed a person to shift the damaged vehicle to the workshop. The initial estimated repair charges were Rs. 40,000/- and it was to be refunded by the insurance company after deducting 20% of the total amount. The vehicle was entrusted for repair works. The repair was not carried out within 5 days. The Petitioner contacted the 1st opposite party several times. On 31.12.2009, the Respondent No. 1 directed the Petitioner to remit Rs. 84,893/- and he remitted the entire amount and also purchased accessories worth Rs. 700/- and handed them over to the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner was, however, surprised to note that the repairing and painting works of the vehicle were not properly done. On the assurance given by the Respondent No. 1 the vehicle was entrusted to Respondent No. 2/Opposite party No. 2 who was its sister concern. On 11.01.2010, the Opposite Party handed over the detailed bill and on verification it was found that the articles or equipments as per the detailed bill were not used for the repairing of the vehicle. The damaged articles were not returned to the complainant after replacement. Even after repair, the vehicle was not in good condition. The painting of the vehicle was not properly done. Further, it was contended that he was entitled to get the insurance amount from the Respondent No. 3/Opposite Party on total loss basis in view of the cost of repair. The Petitioner assert that the Respondent No. 1 prepared a bill for Rs. 1,44,964/- out of which Rs. 84,893/- was collected from the Petitioner and the balance amount was collected from the Insurance Company. The Respondent No. 1 was liable to indemnify the loss which occurred to the Petitioner. The negligent act of the Respondent No. 1 amounted to the loss of money to the Petitioner and hence he was liable to return Rs. 84,893/- with interest. It was also prayed that to repair and complete the painting works of the vehicle within a stipulated period. The Petitioner also prayed for returning the replaced articles and also Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

(3.) The Respondents No. 1 and 2/Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement stating that the vehicle met with an accident and entrusted for repairing the vehicle. The initial estimated charge for the repair work was Rs. 40,000/-. The Petitioner was informed that the Insurance Company-Respondent No. 3 was not liable to pay the full charges and the claim amount would be calculated after depreciation. The Respondents denied that they had given any assurance to repair the vehicle within 5 days and in fact had informed that the major works would be completed in a month. The repairing and painting works of the vehicle were properly done and the remaining painting works was to be done by the Respondent No. 2 was also not correct. The vehicle was delivered to the Petitioner completing all repair works including painting to his satisfaction. The opposite parties returned all major parts replaced in the Petitioner's vehicle. It was also stated that no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service was committed by the Respondents. It was contended since serious damage was caused to the vehicle the repairing charges would be above the present value of the vehicle and the Respondent No. 3 would not sanction huge amount after depreciation. The vehicle was repaired with the instructions of the Petitioner and insisted that they do the work free of cost. Further, the Petitioner had instructed the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to replace the air conditioner with a new one. A bill for Rs. 1,44,964/- was prepared out of which Rs. 84,893/- was collected from the Petitioner and the balance amount was given by the Insurance Company. The Complaint was filed in order to grab money by raising baseless allegations. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.