Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/476/2006

Dr.Manimaran Sreeram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Alliance Genral Insurance Co.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Munirudeen Sheriff

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 09.03.2006

                                                                                                                           Date of Order : 04.04.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                     

CC. NO.476 /2006

WENESDAY THE 4^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                              

Dr. Manimaran Sreeram,

66/2, Pammal Main Road,

Krishna Nagar,

Pammal,

Chennai 600 075.                                          .. Complainant

                                                       

..Vs..

 

1. Balaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Regd. Office & Head Office,

G.E.Plaza,

Yerwada, Pune 411 006.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

25/26, Prince Towers, 4^th Floor,

College Road, Mungambakkam,

Chennai 600 006.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. M.Muniruddin Sherrif & others      

Counsel for opposite parties     :  M/s. M.B. Gopalan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to settle the claim and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he is the owner of the Maruti Esteem Car bearing registration No.TN 07 R 8687 and was insured with the opposite party vide policy No.G.05-1501-1807 -01620106 valid till 13.12.2005.    The complainant further state that when he was returning from his hospital to his house on 11.10.2005 at about 11.00 pm on the Pammal Main Road, near Moongil Eri due to rain the car fell down on the side of the road and rain water flowed into the car.  After help from the people nearby the car was lifted to the road, after two days the water drained in the car, it was towed by the Dealer M/s. Jain Car Care, Chennai for repair.  Further the complainant state that the matter was informed to the 2^nd opposite party  for due claim of insurance.   The car was assessed by the opposite party and the dealer assessment report was given mentioning the water entered into the engine from silencer and the same has to be repaired and the estimate cost of repair is Rs.1,00,000/-.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 15.11.2005 for which the opposite party sent reply dated 5.12.2005 with untenable contention and refused to pay the amount expended towards repair of the vehicle.   The opposite parties repudiated the claim without proper reason.  As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that the vehicle bearing No. TN 07 R 8687 was insured with the 2^nd opposite party valid till 13.12.2005 subject to the terms and conditions specified in the policy that immediately after occurrence of any accident or loss or damage notice has to be given to the opposite parties to enable proper verification of the vehicle and the place of occurrence.   The opposite parties further submit that after two days the complainant towed the vehicle to M/s. Jain Car Care for service.  The complainant has not produced any record to prove such towing.  Only on 19.2.2005, the complainant submitted the claim form to the opposite parties.  Immediately the opposite parties appointed a surveyor one Mr. Ravi to conduct the investigation, verification and assessment.  There is no damage to the vehicle by reason of flooding and the complainant failed to give immediate intimation of the occurrence.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for damages caused to the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 07 R 8687 with cost as prayed for ?

5.   ON POINT :      

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Heard the opposite parties counsel also.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is the owner of the Maruti Esteem Car bearing registration No.TN 07 R 8687 and was insured with the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.G.05-1501-1807 -01620106 valid till 13.12.2005 as per Ex.A1.    The complainant further contended that when he was returning from his hospital to his house on 11.10.2005 at about 11.00 pm on the Pammal Main Road, near Moongil Eri due to  heavy rain the car fell down on the side of the road and rain water flowed into the car.  After help from the people nearby the car was lifted to the road, after two days the water dried in the car, it was towed by the Dealer M/s. Jain Car Care, Chennai for repair.  But the complainant has not produced any document namely FIR, towing bill etc.  to prove the heavy rain and the car fell down into the water.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the matter was informed to the 2^nd opposite party on 19.10.2005 for due claim of insurance.  The 2^nd opposite party also appointed the surveyor one Mr. Ravi who inspected the vehicle.  Even after repeated requests and reminders Ex.A3 & Ex.A5 the opposite parties has not responded.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 15.11.2005 as per Ex.A6 for which the opposite party sent reply dated 5.12.2005 with untenable contention and refused to pay the amount expended towards repair of the vehicle and the opposite parties repudiated the claim without proper reason.  Hence the complainant filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly the vehicle bearing No. TN 07 R 8687 was insured with the 2^nd opposite party valid till 13.12.2005 subject to the terms and conditions specified in the policy that immediately after occurrence of any accident or loss or damage notice has to be given to the opposite parties to enable proper verification of the vehicle and the place of occurrence.    In this case the complainant pleaded and contended that the occurrence happened on 11.10.2005 due to the flood.  The complainant has not preferred to register the FIR. After two days the complainant towed the vehicle to M/s. Jain Car Care for service.  The complainant has not produced any record to prove such towing.   Only on 19.2.2005, the complainant submitted the claim form to the opposite parties.  Immediately the opposite parties appointed a surveyor one Mr. Ravi to conduct the investigation, verification and assessment.  The surveyor while visiting and verifying vehicle neither the car available at the alleged place of flood happened at Moongil Eri the nor the vehicle was in the custody of the complainant but brought to M/s. Jain Car care Company for service  wherein the entire engine was dismantled  shows that there is no symptom of flooding. The surveyor in his letter Ex.B5 stated  very clear that   

“ 1.   You have removed the vehicle from the spot of reported accident without our intimation thus denying us the opportunity to conduct spot inspection to evaluate quantum and cause of the actual loss on as and where basis.

2.      There is no sign of any external damage to the engine or its surroundings parts.

3. Engine was dismantled and repair was started without our approval and inspection thus depriving us an opportunity to list out the actual damages to parts and the repairs required.

4. There was no trances and symptom of water entry into the engine found by the surveyor.

5. Contrary to your statement the water if comes in contract with the internal part which are made of steel cannot cause bending or bursting of engine. “

 

 7.    The learned counsel for the opposite party further contended that  law is well settled that the report of the surveyor cannot be discarded and it should be considered.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not produced any bills for the alleged repair also.  

8.     The learned counsel cited a decision reported in

2015 (3) C.P.J 75

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITON NO.3217 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 3.4.2014 in Appeal No.52/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) D/d. 27.2.2015

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

..Vs..

Benna Raghav

Held that

          B. Insurance Act, 1938 Section 64 Um (2) Insurance – In terms of Section 64Um(2) the surveyors report – Surveyor was independent professional engaged by petitioner to assess loss suffered by the respondent with respect to respondent’s car/ property – Report prepared by Surveyor  was of significant and evidentiary value cannot be ignored and dismissed as such by saying that “assessed loss” cannot be considered trustworthy.

II (2016) CPJ 596 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

ESSEN MODERN RICE MILL (P) LTD

..Vs..

BALAJI ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR.

 

 

 

HELD THAT

 

          Since assessment made by surveyor cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or malafide, no ground for interfering with assessment made by surveyor is made out – Directions issued to pay amount as assessed by surveyor along with interest.

 

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4^th  day of April 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	04.08.2005	Insurance Policy with annexure	Xerox copy
Ex.A2	19.10.2005	Claim letter by the complainant to the opposite party	Xerox copy
Ex.A3	26.10.2005	Reminder	Xerox copy
Ex.A4	26.10.2005	Postal Acknowledgement	Xerox copy
Ex.A5	28.10.2005	Reminder letter to the 1st opposite party with annexure and its postal acknowledgement	Xerox copy
Ex.A6	15.11.2005	Legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party	Xerox copy
Ex.A7	05.12.2005	Reply from the opposite party to the complainant’s Counsel	Xerox copy
Ex.A8	24.01.2006	Reply from the opposite party to the complainant’s Counsel	Xerox copy

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	15.10.2005	Job card for the complainant’s vehicle	Xerox copy
Ex.B2	19.10.2005	Claim Form submitted by the complainant	Xerox copy
Ex.B3	24.10.2005	Complainant’s letter	Xerox copy
Ex.B4	27.10.2005	Surveyor’s letter	Xerox copy
Ex.B5	15.11.2005	Repudiation letter	Xerox copy
Ex.B6	28.11.2005	Surveyor’s Assessment	Xerox copy
Ex.B7	05.12.2005	Reply to the complainant’s notice	Xerox copy

 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT