AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President
THESE appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 1157/1993. The opposite parties are the appellants in Appeal No. 127/1997 and the complainant who is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation has filed Appeal No, 177/1997 seeking enhancement of compensation. This complaint was filed by Centre of Indian Consumer Protection and Research, hereinafter referred to a Coinpar on behalf of K.S. Jalaludeen. K.S. Jalaludeen is the owner the Ashok Leyland Model 1991 bus and he was operating the said bus in the Kadakavoor-Madathara route. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties, The policy was comprehensive insurance covering all the risks. On 16.3.1993 the vehicle met with accident at Madavoor and was excessively damaged. So passengers had also sustained major injuries, Intimation was given to the third opposite party who advised Jalaludeen to take the vehicle to the workshop M/s. Chellan Body Works, Kuravankuzhy, Kilimanoor. Subsequently a rough estimate of charges for damage rectification was submitted for a total amount of Rs. 1,30,932/- and an additional estimate of Rs. 6,000/- was also later submitted. A Surveyor was deputed and he inspected the vehicle on 22.3.1993 and the work order dated 2.4.1992 was issued. The work order was underestimated constituting deficiency of service. It was prepared mala fide with the intention of harassing Jalaludeen. Jalaludeen''s claim for the damaged vehicle''s glass and the front wind shield was refused. The work was completed and the bills were produced on 3.5.1993 which amounted to Rs. 78,115.80/-. The opposite party based on the report of the Surveyor offered Rs. 23,168/- as compensation. The complainant alleged that the second Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle agreed on the genuineness of the claim for main axle. Complainant also complained towards towing and lifting expense of the vehicle only an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was allowed. The complainant alleged that the conduct of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service and claimed Rs. 78,115/- towards repairing and replacement of spare parts which included an amount of Rs. 2,350/- for towing the vehicle and also a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony.
The opposite parties filed version stating that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the Surveyor carefully inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss. They also alleged the complainant never spent Rs. 78,115.80 paise. They further averred that the main axle did not require replacement. Policy excess deduction has to be allowed under the policy conditions and me complaint is liable to be dismissed.
THE District Forum considered the matter elaborately and came to the conclusion that the main axle required replacement and the complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 26,629/- for replacement as evidenced by Exbt Pl(e). Ultimately the District Forum passed an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 78,115/- together with interest @ 12%. In coming to the conclusion that the main axle required replacement the District Forum relied on Exbt. C3 issued by TVS & Sons stating that it sright side twisted badly and it is beyond repairable condition. The Surveyor who was examined as DW 1 admitted that he did not properly check the main axle and therefore, it was clear that he was incapable of giving evidence whether it needed only repair. 6.1n this appeal filed by the opposite parties it was vehemently contended mat the main axle did not require replacement. It was also argued by learned Counsel that mere is some difference in the number of the main axle found in the MO 1 and also the number given in the certificate issued by the TVS Authority. In view of this condition we passed an order on 7.7.1991 directing MO 1 kept in me District Forum to be examined by an expert mechanic of the TVS and directed him to certify whether MO 1 required replacement. We also directed the number found in the axile MO 1 also be noted by the mechanic. Pursuant to this the foreman of die TVS examined and submitted a report which we marked as Exbt. C2. The Assistant Foreman of the TVS went to the District Forum and examined and found the number on the MO 1 is ALFA 8 UE 35514 N. He also stated that in the certificate number is given as 33574. According to him this happened on account of mistake in noting 7 for 1. He further stated that there was a line above one on the leftern side and that was the reason for mistake. The report clearly shows that the number given is only a mistake. Report further confirms that the main axle cannot be repaired and used. In the circumstances we do not find any error in the finding entered by the District Forum that the main axle also required replacement and the Surveyor committed a deficiency in not recommending replacement of main axle. 7. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company further contended under the policy there is provision for depreciation. The axle was purchased for Rs. 25,107/-. For a vehicle between one year and two years old the depreciation has to be allowed at 10%. We find that the accident took place on 16.3.1993 and the vehicle was purchased in 1991 and it was registered on 3.1.1992. In the circumstance according to the policy 10% has to be deducted from the cost of axle towards depreciation and that would come to Rs. 2,500/-. Similarly policy provides that the towing charge allowable is only Rs. 1,000/- what is allowed is Rs. 2,500/-. Therefore Rs. 1,500/- has to be also deducted. The policy also provides no compensation will be allowed for glass parts and Rs. 5,200/- has been allowed towards replacement of glass. That also has to be deducted. Depreciation has to be allowed on the total purchase value of other spare parts executing main axle for which we have already given depreciation. We find the cost of other spare parts is Rs. 33,211/- and 10% depreciation will come to Rs. 3,221/-. This amount also has to be deducted from the total amount awarded by the District Forum. Thus calculated the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 65,581.80 paise together with interest at 12% from 28.10.1993 besides cost of Rs. 500/- awarded by the District Forum. The order of District Forum is modified as above and the Appeal No. 127/1997 is allowed to the above limited extent. Appeal No. 177/1997 is dismissed. Appeal No. 127/1997 allowed & Appeal No. 177/1997 dismissed.