IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Third party - The complainant cannot insist that the work should be conducted only by the third opposite party. No fault could be attributed on the part of the first and second opposite parties as they had promptly initiated the required action to honour the claim.
(2) Repair Work - If the complainant was not willing to avail the service of the third opposite party, he could have chosen another authorized dealer to affect the repair work.

JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No.419/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (will be referred to as District Commission for convenience) against the order dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant in short is as stated below:—

He is the registered owner of a Maruti Ritz car bearing Registration No. KL 40/F 7677 which was purchased from the third opposite party for a sum of Rs.5,51,589/-. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. The value of the car as shown in the insurance policy was Rs.5,24,009/-. On 29.12.2012 the vehicle met with an accident and it was brought to the yard of the third opposite party on 01.01.2013 for effecting repair works. The third opposite party had prepared a service estimate for Rs.4,98,896/- for effecting repairs. But the insurance company i.e.; the first and second opposite parties did not approve the estimate. So the work could not be carried out.

3. Thereupon the complainant caused issuance of a lawyer notice requesting the opposite parties to complete the repair work on the basis of the estimate prepared by the third opposite party. On receipt of the notice the first and second opposite parties, through their surveyor and valuer, intimated the complainant that instructions had been given to the third opposite party to carry out the work. But the repair work of the vehicle was never carried out since the first and second opposite parties had difference of opinion with the third opposite party in respect of the estimate prepared by the third opposite party. The vehicle was fully insured through a bumper to bumper policy. Arrangements for insurance policy and other initial formalities were done by the third opposite party.

4. According to the complainant the opposite parties are bound to give proper service and repairs to the vehicle. The third opposite party was bound to entrust the vehicle to the complainant after effecting repairs to his vehicle. The rift between the first and second opposite parties with the third opposite party was the reason for depriving the complainant from getting his vehicle repaired. Therefore the complainant had sought for a direction to the opposite parties to repair the vehicle and entrust the same to him. An alternative prayer was also made to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- to close the loan availed by him for purchase of the vehicle. He had also sought for Rs.75,000/- as travel expenses @ Rs.500/- per day as he was unable to use his car.

5. The first and second opposite parties filed a version admitting the existence of a valid insurance policy and that the third opposite party had submitted an estimate as Rs.4,98,896/- as repair charges for the insured vehicle. According to them the assessment of the third opposite party regarding the cost of repairs was only mere projection of costs which may likely to occur. The qualified insurance surveyor had inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and recommended an amount payable for the repairs which fact was intimated to the third opposite party. There was no rift between the opposite parties 1 & 2 with the third opposite party. The surveyor had already instructed the third opposite party to repair the vehicle and to submit additional estimate if anything else is needed. According to them there is no deficiency of service and the adamant attitude and greed of the complainant had created the situation for which the opposite parties are not responsible.

6. The third opposite party, the dealer would admit that they had prepared an estimate of Rs.4,98,896/- as the funds required for repairs. According to the third opposite party the work could not be conducted as the complainant never gave confirmation to do the work with readiness to pay the balance, if any, after adjusting the amount allowed by the insurance company. The complainant insisted that the work could