Date of Filing:10-1-2018  

                                                                                         Date of Order:31 -1-2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Sri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Sri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MALE MEMBER

HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM.,(PGD (ADR) LADY MEMBER

Friday, the  31^st day of January, 2020

C.C.No.88 /2018

Between

Mr. Rajeev Mukundan

S/o.K.P.Mukundan, aged about 45 years,

Resident of 134, Primrose, L & T Serene County

Gachibowli, Serilingampally,

Ranga Reddy District – 500032                                               ……Complainant

And

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

(A Government of India Undertaking)

Registered and Head office at A-25/27

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Motor Claim Service Centre

D.No.6-1-349, Padma Rao Nagar

Adjacent to Naivedyam Hotel

Secunderabad – 509 025

Rep. by its Branch Manager                                   ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the complainant          : Mr.Ramachandra Rao Gurram

Counsel for the opposite Parties    :  Mr.K.V.Rao

O R D E R

(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint is  preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that  repudiation of the claim submitted by the complainant  to the opposite party amounts to  unfair trade practice and  deficiency of service  hence a direction to the opposite  parties to pay policy amount of Rs.10,40,000/- and demurrage charges of Rs.1,30,000/- and interest on the said amount  at 24% P.A from the date of complaint to the date of payment and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant  on account of repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties. 

1. The case of  the complainant  in brief :  He as  the owner of the  Mercedes Benz Car bearing No.AP36 AQ0111 availed insurance policy from the opposite  parties on 15-7-2016 and insured  Declared Value shown the policy  is Rs.10,40,000/-.  The policy period expires on 20^th July 2017. On 31-08-2016 while the complainant was driving the car to his office  at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad there was heavy rain and  in the rain water  the car was submerged  and suffered damage.  As complainant could not drive  the vehicle   he got it towed  to the  nearest workshop.   The damage of the vehicle  on account of submerging of water  was intimated to the  opposite  parties by way of mail on 6-09-2016 and requested to appoint a surveyor  to assess the damage and  sought  assistance  to process the claim.

           The opposite parties appointed one Mr. D.N.Reddy  to assess the damage caused  to the complainant’s car.  The workshop where the car towed by the complainant   estimated  the repair charges at Rs.38,29,200/-.  Thereafter opposite parties informed the complainant  that a second surveyor is appointed  for processing the insurance claim and that  there is a variation in the actual model of the vehicle   and chassis Number and investigator was appointed  to verify the same.  Thereafter  complainant  did not receive any information  from the opposite parties  though he regularly followed-up.   The complainant addressed  an email  on 31-5-2017 expressing  his grievance   with the  opposite parties and inconvenience  being suffered  for  delay  and payment  of demurrage charges etc.  Opposite  parties  gave a reply on 13-7-2017 stating that  physical inspection of the vehicle  and workshop report shows that  the cars having  different  Class and different look and fixtures  and  there is different of one numeral  of Engine number and on account of it  the subject matter of insurance is different hence the policy is void and competent authority  has repudiated the claim for breach of Principal of Contract.  The opposite parties also stated  that  an opportunity  is provided  to the complainant  to substantiate  his claim within seven (7) days  in view of the grounds  of repudiation before final decision is taken.  Complainant gave a reply   through his counsel on 19-7-2017  disputing  the  allegation of breach of principle of contract  and explained  the reasons  for  discrepancies  of Engine Number  and Class of vehicle  and that  there is no violation of  any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 hence it is not open to the  opposite parties to repudiate the claim.  Thereafter he did not receive any communication from the opposite parties.  The complainant has incurred  unwarranted expenditure  on account of undue delay in processing the claim as  demurrage charges are mounting.  Hence the present complaint. 

2.  The opposite parties in the written version admitted  issuance of  policy  to the complainant’s car but denied the allegation of unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part.  The stand of the opposite parties is a private car package policy was issued to the complainant  covering the vehicle bearing No.AP 36AQ0111 with engine No.6409403027001 and chassis No.WDD2452072J174094CC1998 Mercedez Benz – C class C180 Classic. On physical inspection  of the vehicle  by the surveyor at the workshop it is  shown that the  car is Mercedes – Benz Class B and there  is difference  in the engine and chassis  numbers.  Thus the car   for which the insurance was provided by the opposite parties  it is different  from the car  that  was damaged in the accident.  While sending the letter of repudiation  the complainant was given an opportunity to substantiate the claim.  Hence the complaint has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 

        In the enquiry  the  complainant got  filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same exhibited six (6) documents.  For the  Opposite Parties evidence affidavits  of its Regional Manager and that of surveyor and loss assessor are filed and exhibited  nine (9) documents in support of their stand.   Both sides have filed written arguments and supplemented the same by the oral submissions. 

            On a consideration of material brought on  record both by way of affidavits  as well as the  Exhibits  the following points have emerged for determination:        

1. Whether  the complainant could make out a case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice  on the  part of the  opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief?

Point No.1:  Ex.A1 is the policy document  for the subject vehicle  issued by the opposite parties and terms and conditions therein are  not in dispute.  Ex.A2 is the RC of the vehicle and A3 is the driving license of the complainant which are also not in dispute.  The stand of the opposite  parties is there is a different of class of vehicle  engine and chassis numbers because inspection of the  car by the surveyor  appointed it is noticed the car  actually owned and possessed  with the complainant is Class B whereas  the policy issued  Class C. Similarly there is  a different  of one numeral  of lost digit  for the Engine and Chassis numbers of car actually available and registered with RTA when  compared to the  numbers physically appearing  as verified by surveyor who inspected the vehicle.  During the course of enquiry   no serious objection taken by the learned counsel for opposite  parties  by conceding  that on account of some software used by Warangal RTA all the numeral of chassis and engine numbers could not be shown in the RC.  Ex.A3 is the  mail  sent by the complainant to the opposite parties intimating about the damage caused to the vehicle  on account of submerging rainwater.  Ex.A5 is letter of intimation repudiating the claim and  in the same letter the opposite parties gave an opportunity to complainant to substantiate  his claim in view of the ground of repudiation mentioned in the letter before final decision  is taken by the competent authority.  In response to it the complainant sent a reply by Ex.A6 on 19-7-2017 these documents are not disputed  by opposite parties.

           The evidence affidavit of   Sri D.Narayana Reddy  surveyor and loss assessor  appointed by the opposite parties to inspect the complainant’s car  shows  he submitted a preliminary report on 10-10-2016 intimating  net liability  worked out  at Rs.4,50,600/- and assessed  net liability at Rs.6,56,400/- after final survey as loss  and recommended  to settle  on repair loss basis  subject to terms and conditions  of the policy.  Ex.B4 and B5 are reports given by him to the opposite parties.  In the final report Ex.B5  he has recommended the opposite parties  to settle the  claim at Rs.6,56,400/-  as  detailed by him.   It is evident from Ex.B6 the opposite parties have appointed V.K.G. Engineers & Surveyors  to submit their  report for the loss occurred and examined the issue.   The said surveyors  opined that contract policy stand is void.   Ex.A5  is said letter filed by the complainant  himself.   The final document Ex.B9 is the intimation  given by the opposite parties to the complainant after receipt of legal notice got issued by the complainant  on 13-09-2017 stating that  the  file was referred to their  Regional office for the advice and on thorough verification,  competent authority  advised to consider  the claim on repair loss  basis as per the  report of surveyor  Mr. D.Narayana Reddy  dated 10-2-2017 hence the opposite parties requested  the complainant  to repair the vehicle  as per the assessment  made by  Mr.D.Narayana Reddy and submit the bills along with  other required documents  for settling the claim  subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  Thus it is evident that the opposite parties after thorough examination  of the issue finally conceded the liability to settle the claim  basing on the  report of Mr. D.Narayana Reddy  surveyor appointed initially  who recommend  to settle the claim  at Rs.6,56,400/-.  As already said by  Ex.A5/B8 the opposite parties gave an opportunity  to complainant  to substantiate his claim before taking a final decision with regard to claim.  Complainant by ignoring  Ex.B9 offer to settle the claim to go ahead  with repairs  has  approached this Forum alleging that final decision was taken to repudiate the claim submitted by him. 

            During the course of argument the learned counsel for the complainant  for the first time came up with version the complainant was  not  in  receipt of Ex.B9 letter  and the opposite parties have not produced  an acknowledgment  in proof of service of this Ex.B9, letter hence it can be said that this document brought into existence  as an after taught.  This Forum is unable to accept this argument  of the learned counsel for the complainant because the document was filed on 11-2-2019 and same it was exhibited  and  infact learned counsel for the complainant received the  copies of documents   Ex.B1 to B9 on 11-02-2019 itself.  So there was an opportunity for the complainant to come up with an affidavit stating that  letter under Ex.B9 was not served upon him at any point of time.  In the absence of affidavit to that affect the submission  at this fag end  that it was not received by the complainant cannot be countenanced.  In the light of Ex.B9 letter whereby and where under  the complainant was asked to go ahead with repair  and submit  a claim to process it in terms of the policy  it can be  safely said that  complaint is premature.  Hence the point is answered that complainant failed to make out a case of either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

Point No.2: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is  not entitled  to amounts claimed. 

Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  However the complainant is at liberty to submit a claim afresh after attending repairs  as advised by D.Narayana Reddy  surveyor and loss assessor who  inspected the subject vehicle.  No order as to costs. 

                        Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced  by us on this the 31^st day of January , 2020

LADYMEMBER                        MALEMEMBER                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1- copy of insurance policy

Ex.A2- copy of Registration certificate and Driving License

Ex.A3- copy of Emails 

Ex.A4-copy of Email

Ex.A5- copy of letter dt.13-7-2017

Ex.A6- copy of reply dt.19-07-2017

Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party  

Ex.B1-Private car package policy

Ex.B2-claim intimation and appointment of surveyor dt.06/09/2016

Ex.B3- Motor claim form along with estimate of repairs

Ex.B4- preliminary survey report issued by D.Narayana Reddy dt.10/10/2016

Ex.B5- Final Survey report issued by D.Narayana Reddy

Ex.B6- Report of VKG Engineers & Surveyors dt.19/06/2017

Ex.B7- Investigators report dt.2/06/2017

Ex.B8- Letter to complainant sent by O.P dt.13/07/2017

Ex.B9- letter to complainant  sent by O.P dt.13-09-2017

LADYMEMBER                   MALEMEMBER                               PRESIDENT